In most hospitals, the perioperative department drives the lion’s share of revenues-typically around 50-60%-while contributing 30-40% of the costs.1 Those costs largely reflect supply consumption. According to one study, supply costs accounted for 56 % of the total expense budget for a perioperative department, exceeding salary costs by more than 20%. 2
Facing major capital and operational budget pressure, most healthcare organizations are seeking more effective ways to reduce OR supply costs while preserving or even improving patient safety, operational efficiency, and staff productivity.
In most hospitals, the perioperative department drives the lion’s share of revenues-typically around 50-60%-while contributing 30-40% of the costs.1 Those costs largely reflect supply consumption. According to one study, supply costs accounted for 56 % of the total expense budget for a perioperative department, exceeding salary costs by more than 20%. 2
Facing major capital and operational budget pressure, most healthcare organizations are seeking more effective ways to reduce OR supply costs while preserving or even improving patient safety, operational efficiency, and staff productivity.
Running Head: FROM THE FRONT LINES1
From the Front Lines
Lisa M. Buentello
HCA 311: Health Care Financing & Information Systems
Professor Kathleen Martocci
May 29, 2015
- 1 -
[no notes on this page]
Future Direction of Health Care 2
From the Front Lines
The break even analysis figures can be used to establish the impacts of various
reimbursements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Private and self-pay contributions. Notably,
from the break even analysis of the “From the Front lines” facility, increase in Medicare and
Medicaid benefits have an effect of increasing sales volume. Eventually, the value of the gross
margin increases leading to an upsurge of the value of the contribution per unit. This leads to a
reduction in the number of the break-even procedures. Private or self-pays have an effect of
increasing the volume of sales in addition to the increment made by Medicaid and Medicare
benefits. As a result, the break even procedures will become even smaller causing a
corresponding increase in profit margins.
Break even analysis is essentially important in developing my upcoming capital
investment proposal. It will be applicable in clarifying the extent of the viability of my planned
objectives. Specifically, this tool will be of great significance in evaluating expansion
opportunities, new providers, new services or new capital purchases (Cafferky, 2012). Break
even analysis is basically used in establishing whether the planned activity is viable enough to
cover the expected costs that are principally divided into variable and fixed expenses.
Also, I will utilize break analysis values to ascertain whether the capital proposal will be
financially viable. Specifically, it will be applicable in determining the activity level that will
- 2 -
[no notes on this page]
Future Direction of Health Care 3
cover the projected fixed and variable costs of the venture satisfactorily. It is at this point that a
break even analysis will be used to evaluate the critical components of my budget plan.
Typically, break even analysis and the budget plan are used interchangeably while
making financial analysis that concerns various capital investment plan proposals (Cafferky,
2012).
Break Even Analysis
Break Even
Analysis
Sales payment per procedure $885
numbe of procedures in year 1 500
numbe of procedures in year 2-5 850
Total Sales amount
1, 194,
750
Variable costs Cost of each Procedure $175
Total number of procedures 1350
Total Variable costs $236, 250
Contribution Per Unit 710
Gross Margin=sales-variable costs
$958,
500
Fixed Costs Purchasing costs
$ 11,
000
Rennovation Costs $9,000
$20,000
Employees Salaries
$ 336,
000
Total fixed costs
.
1Running Head NURSING PROFESSIONALISM2NURSING PROFESSIONALI.docxfelicidaddinwoodie
1
Running Head: NURSING PROFESSIONALISM
2
NURSING PROFESSIONALISM
Nursing Professionalism
Name
Institution
Introduction
Generally, professionalism can be defined as the standard of behavior members of a certain profession are expected to display and this conduct is driven by the profession’s goals and qualities. Nurses and other health care providers portray professionalism by making sure they adhere to the set regulations, principles and standards of clinical practices in their attitudes, knowledge and behavior (Michiko et al., 2014, 579). Studies involving professionalism in the field of nursing have revealed that patients under the care of a nurse displaying professionalism have a higher chance of surviving than those under the care of a less professional nurse which serves as evidence for the importance of professionalism in nursing.
Professionalism and Education
Various surveys regarding nursing professionalism have been done and in a recent one, nurses in Japan scored a mean of 6.74 while those in Turkey had a much higher score of 16.7. The main variable in the set of nurses involved in the study was that only 43.5% of the Japanese nurses had a baccalaureate or a higher degree education level as compared to Turkey’s 79.5%. This validates previous findings that have concluded that professionalism in nursing or any other discipline increases with the level of education of the practitioner of the specific profession.
As mentioned above, professionalism is positively correlated with education level but the importance of this has been quantified by studies. It has been shown that increasing by 10% the number of nurses holding a bachelors degree or higher in a hospital causes a 5% decrease in the chance that an admitted patient will die within one month of admission (Michiko et al., 2014, 584). It also significantly decreases the likelihood of a patient dying due to sudden life threatening complications. High education levels combined with nursing experience are therefore vital in increasing professionalism.
Improving Professionalism
One of the ways to improve professionalism in the nursing practice is by improving working conditions. With Japan as an example, nurses work for long hours and have mandatory night shifts without receiving adequate compensation which has led to a high turnover rate. The low retention rate implies that nurses do not gain professionalism resulting from experience. Hence, it is imperative that health care institutions provide nurses with a work environment that is conducive for professional growth.
The importance of education for professionalism has been clearly es ...
The Physician Value Index. A Tool for Effective Physician Integration. pscisolutions
Discover a new way to measure physician performance, and align physicians in context with patient satisfaction, quality-of-care measures and overall hospital financial performance.
Acting as a roadmap through the changes in healthcare and healthcare law that occur almost daily, this presentation uses a case study to illustrate real-world issues and concerns associated with the compensation redesign process, including types of compensation models, service-specific compensation components, legal and contractual issue identification and mitigation, fair market value challenges
WHEN AND HOW DOES VALUE BASED PURCHASING IMPACT HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE?Kirsty Macauldy, MBA
To improve the overall quality of healthcare, The National Quality Strategy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services broadly defines the outcomes that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants to achieve through the care it purchases for its beneficiaries. The strategies; aims of better health, better care, and lower costs.
Healthcare Total Cost of Care Analysis: A Vital ToolHealth Catalyst
How can healthcare organizations set themselves up for success as the industry shifts from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement? They need to understand risk of their patients and population to identify ways to reduce healthcare costs and improve quality of care. This makes total cost of care (TCOC) analysis a necessary skillset in this time of transition.
TCOC analysis leverages key elements of the healthcare analytics infrastructure to understand how money is being spent at the organization and identify the drivers of high cost:
An integrated EDW.
Payer reporting tools.
Claims and membership data.
Predictive capabilities.
Risk scores.
Scorecards and dashboards.
Analyst support.
Putting the SPARK into Virtual Training.pptxCynthia Clay
This 60-minute webinar, sponsored by Adobe, was delivered for the Training Mag Network. It explored the five elements of SPARK: Storytelling, Purpose, Action, Relationships, and Kudos. Knowing how to tell a well-structured story is key to building long-term memory. Stating a clear purpose that doesn't take away from the discovery learning process is critical. Ensuring that people move from theory to practical application is imperative. Creating strong social learning is the key to commitment and engagement. Validating and affirming participants' comments is the way to create a positive learning environment.
Running Head: FROM THE FRONT LINES1
From the Front Lines
Lisa M. Buentello
HCA 311: Health Care Financing & Information Systems
Professor Kathleen Martocci
May 29, 2015
- 1 -
[no notes on this page]
Future Direction of Health Care 2
From the Front Lines
The break even analysis figures can be used to establish the impacts of various
reimbursements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Private and self-pay contributions. Notably,
from the break even analysis of the “From the Front lines” facility, increase in Medicare and
Medicaid benefits have an effect of increasing sales volume. Eventually, the value of the gross
margin increases leading to an upsurge of the value of the contribution per unit. This leads to a
reduction in the number of the break-even procedures. Private or self-pays have an effect of
increasing the volume of sales in addition to the increment made by Medicaid and Medicare
benefits. As a result, the break even procedures will become even smaller causing a
corresponding increase in profit margins.
Break even analysis is essentially important in developing my upcoming capital
investment proposal. It will be applicable in clarifying the extent of the viability of my planned
objectives. Specifically, this tool will be of great significance in evaluating expansion
opportunities, new providers, new services or new capital purchases (Cafferky, 2012). Break
even analysis is basically used in establishing whether the planned activity is viable enough to
cover the expected costs that are principally divided into variable and fixed expenses.
Also, I will utilize break analysis values to ascertain whether the capital proposal will be
financially viable. Specifically, it will be applicable in determining the activity level that will
- 2 -
[no notes on this page]
Future Direction of Health Care 3
cover the projected fixed and variable costs of the venture satisfactorily. It is at this point that a
break even analysis will be used to evaluate the critical components of my budget plan.
Typically, break even analysis and the budget plan are used interchangeably while
making financial analysis that concerns various capital investment plan proposals (Cafferky,
2012).
Break Even Analysis
Break Even
Analysis
Sales payment per procedure $885
numbe of procedures in year 1 500
numbe of procedures in year 2-5 850
Total Sales amount
1, 194,
750
Variable costs Cost of each Procedure $175
Total number of procedures 1350
Total Variable costs $236, 250
Contribution Per Unit 710
Gross Margin=sales-variable costs
$958,
500
Fixed Costs Purchasing costs
$ 11,
000
Rennovation Costs $9,000
$20,000
Employees Salaries
$ 336,
000
Total fixed costs
.
1Running Head NURSING PROFESSIONALISM2NURSING PROFESSIONALI.docxfelicidaddinwoodie
1
Running Head: NURSING PROFESSIONALISM
2
NURSING PROFESSIONALISM
Nursing Professionalism
Name
Institution
Introduction
Generally, professionalism can be defined as the standard of behavior members of a certain profession are expected to display and this conduct is driven by the profession’s goals and qualities. Nurses and other health care providers portray professionalism by making sure they adhere to the set regulations, principles and standards of clinical practices in their attitudes, knowledge and behavior (Michiko et al., 2014, 579). Studies involving professionalism in the field of nursing have revealed that patients under the care of a nurse displaying professionalism have a higher chance of surviving than those under the care of a less professional nurse which serves as evidence for the importance of professionalism in nursing.
Professionalism and Education
Various surveys regarding nursing professionalism have been done and in a recent one, nurses in Japan scored a mean of 6.74 while those in Turkey had a much higher score of 16.7. The main variable in the set of nurses involved in the study was that only 43.5% of the Japanese nurses had a baccalaureate or a higher degree education level as compared to Turkey’s 79.5%. This validates previous findings that have concluded that professionalism in nursing or any other discipline increases with the level of education of the practitioner of the specific profession.
As mentioned above, professionalism is positively correlated with education level but the importance of this has been quantified by studies. It has been shown that increasing by 10% the number of nurses holding a bachelors degree or higher in a hospital causes a 5% decrease in the chance that an admitted patient will die within one month of admission (Michiko et al., 2014, 584). It also significantly decreases the likelihood of a patient dying due to sudden life threatening complications. High education levels combined with nursing experience are therefore vital in increasing professionalism.
Improving Professionalism
One of the ways to improve professionalism in the nursing practice is by improving working conditions. With Japan as an example, nurses work for long hours and have mandatory night shifts without receiving adequate compensation which has led to a high turnover rate. The low retention rate implies that nurses do not gain professionalism resulting from experience. Hence, it is imperative that health care institutions provide nurses with a work environment that is conducive for professional growth.
The importance of education for professionalism has been clearly es ...
The Physician Value Index. A Tool for Effective Physician Integration. pscisolutions
Discover a new way to measure physician performance, and align physicians in context with patient satisfaction, quality-of-care measures and overall hospital financial performance.
Acting as a roadmap through the changes in healthcare and healthcare law that occur almost daily, this presentation uses a case study to illustrate real-world issues and concerns associated with the compensation redesign process, including types of compensation models, service-specific compensation components, legal and contractual issue identification and mitigation, fair market value challenges
WHEN AND HOW DOES VALUE BASED PURCHASING IMPACT HOSPITAL PERFORMANCE?Kirsty Macauldy, MBA
To improve the overall quality of healthcare, The National Quality Strategy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services broadly defines the outcomes that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants to achieve through the care it purchases for its beneficiaries. The strategies; aims of better health, better care, and lower costs.
Healthcare Total Cost of Care Analysis: A Vital ToolHealth Catalyst
How can healthcare organizations set themselves up for success as the industry shifts from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement? They need to understand risk of their patients and population to identify ways to reduce healthcare costs and improve quality of care. This makes total cost of care (TCOC) analysis a necessary skillset in this time of transition.
TCOC analysis leverages key elements of the healthcare analytics infrastructure to understand how money is being spent at the organization and identify the drivers of high cost:
An integrated EDW.
Payer reporting tools.
Claims and membership data.
Predictive capabilities.
Risk scores.
Scorecards and dashboards.
Analyst support.
Putting the SPARK into Virtual Training.pptxCynthia Clay
This 60-minute webinar, sponsored by Adobe, was delivered for the Training Mag Network. It explored the five elements of SPARK: Storytelling, Purpose, Action, Relationships, and Kudos. Knowing how to tell a well-structured story is key to building long-term memory. Stating a clear purpose that doesn't take away from the discovery learning process is critical. Ensuring that people move from theory to practical application is imperative. Creating strong social learning is the key to commitment and engagement. Validating and affirming participants' comments is the way to create a positive learning environment.
Company Valuation webinar series - Tuesday, 4 June 2024FelixPerez547899
This session provided an update as to the latest valuation data in the UK and then delved into a discussion on the upcoming election and the impacts on valuation. We finished, as always with a Q&A
In the Adani-Hindenburg case, what is SEBI investigating.pptxAdani case
Adani SEBI investigation revealed that the latter had sought information from five foreign jurisdictions concerning the holdings of the firm’s foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) in relation to the alleged violations of the MPS Regulations. Nevertheless, the economic interest of the twelve FPIs based in tax haven jurisdictions still needs to be determined. The Adani Group firms classed these FPIs as public shareholders. According to Hindenburg, FPIs were used to get around regulatory standards.
Top mailing list providers in the USA.pptxJeremyPeirce1
Discover the top mailing list providers in the USA, offering targeted lists, segmentation, and analytics to optimize your marketing campaigns and drive engagement.
An introduction to the cryptocurrency investment platform Binance Savings.Any kyc Account
Learn how to use Binance Savings to expand your bitcoin holdings. Discover how to maximize your earnings on one of the most reliable cryptocurrency exchange platforms, as well as how to earn interest on your cryptocurrency holdings and the various savings choices available.
Event Report - SAP Sapphire 2024 Orlando - lots of innovation and old challengesHolger Mueller
Holger Mueller of Constellation Research shares his key takeaways from SAP's Sapphire confernece, held in Orlando, June 3rd till 5th 2024, in the Orange Convention Center.
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
2. Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3-5
Financial and Operational Study 6 - 50
• Total Profit Margin 6 - 12
• Total Operating Profit Margin 13 - 20
• Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues 21 - 26
• Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff per Adjusted Occupied Bed (AOB) 27 - 33
• Days Net Patient Revenue in Accounts Receivable (AR) 34 - 40
• Average Age of Plant and Equipment 41 - 50
Introduction to Healthcare Management Partners 51 - 52
Clients Our Professionals Have Served 53 - 54
Firm Leadership 55 - 58
Contact Information 59
October 2010 2
3. Executive Summary – Overview
Healthcare Management Partners (HMP) is a hospital and healthcare services management firm. For decades, all of its senior
executives have been building and operating thriving healthcare organizations, including CEO, COO and CFO assignments
across the spectrum of healthcare services providers. This knowledge base gives HMP a unique perspective on what tools are
necessary to handle the issues facing any healthcare provider organization, and is what prompted HMP to create HMP
MetricsTM. Our executives understand the value of being able to measure hospital performance relative to comparable
facilities and against “1st Quartile” or “High Performing” competitors.
Utilizing the last six years of publicly available hospital Medicare cost report data, HMP has conducted an extensive study
comparing performance within six hospital peer groups. We can easily create custom peer groups and metrics. These groups
selected include the following:
1. All General Acute Care Hospitals Regardless of Ownership or Sponsorship
2. All Investor Owned General Acute Care Hospitals
3. All Not-For-Profit General Acute Care Hospitals, including Institutions Sponsored by Religious Organizations
4. All State and Local Government Owned General Acute Care Hospitals
5. Free Standing Children’s Hospitals
6. All Non-Federal Major Teaching Hospitals
Using proprietary filters, data contained in the HMP Metrics database has been “scrubbed” to exclude partial period or
statistically aberrant data elements for individual hospitals or health systems. It also excludes Federal Government hospitals,
specialty hospitals (e.g., long-term acute care) and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of its total licensed
beds are comprised of sub-acute beds. This data validation process produces highly accurate and defensible peer group
comparisons for dozens of standard industry metrics.
This report measures several commonly used metrics to further stratify these hospital types into quartiles in order to illustrate
the benchmarks for poor to exceptional performance for each of the metrics. With this information, one can quickly assess the
relative financial well-being of any facility in any of these groups. HMP can easily create custom reports and mix or create
new peer groups and compare them to state, local or national benchmarks.
October 2010 3
4. Executive Summary – Key Terms
Quartile Rankings: Quartile rankings were assigned based on the mean values calculated for all major teaching
hospitals within the peer groups.
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Regardless of Bed Size
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 12.03% 11.15% 60 9.77% 8.90% 72 14.24% 13.62% 74
2nd Quartile 5.65% 5.89% 62 4.03% 4.30% 72 7.74% 7.72% 76
3rd Quartile 1.54% 1.66% 64 (0.73%) (1.05%) 74 3.14% 3.15% 76
4th Quartile (7.25%) (5.96%) 64 (9.21%) (8.31%) 75 (3.87%) (2.15%) 78
Total Population 2.83% 3.59% 250 0.85% 1.69% 293 5.20% 5.63% 304
Excluded Cost Reports 15 22 13
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
As noted above, the first quartile contains the top 25% of the best performing hospitals in an applicable peer group,
the second quartile contains those hospitals falling in the 26% to 50% range, the third quartile contains those
hospitals falling in the 51% to 75% range, and finally the fourth quartile contains those hospitals falling below 76%.
Mean Value: The mean value is the average of all amounts within a defined quartile or population.
Median Value: The report also contains the median value by quartile or total population.
Count: Actual number of qualified hospitals included in the mean or median calculation.
Excluded Cost Reports: Represents those metrics values not considered normative (i.e., outlier values). For
example, certain metric values that were greater than two standard deviations from the mean of a reported population
would be excluded from the analysis and included in this category.
October 2010 4
5. Executive Summary – Hospital Performance Metrics
A measure of overall hospital profitability presented as a percentage. A negative percentage
Total Profit Margin
indicates an overall loss, while a positive percentage indicates profitability.
A measure of operating profitability presented as a percentage. A negative percentage indicates
Total Operating Profit Margin
overall loss, while a positive percentage indicates profitability.
A measure of labor productivity. This metric divides labor costs by operating revenues. A
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of
higher percentage compared to its peers indicates that a hospital uses more labor to produce its
Total Operating Revenues
revenue.
Measures the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees used for each occupied bed.
Full-Time Equivalent Staff (FTEs) per
Similar to the previous ratio, a higher percentage compared to its peers indicates that a hospital
Adjusted Occupied Bed (AOB)
uses more labor to treat its patients.
Measures the number of days it typically takes to collect accounts receivable. A higher
Days Net Patient Revenue in
percentage compared to its peers indicates that the hospital's revenue cycle is not as efficient as
Accounts Receivable (AR)
its peers.
Measures the average age of the hospital including capital improvements and major equipment
Average Age of Plant and Equipment purchases. A higher age compared to its peers indicates that the hospital has deferred the
replacement of its capital when compared to its peers, which can lead to further distress.
Source: Metrics are based on data extracted from Medicare cost reports filed each year with the Federal
Government. Accuracy of the data contained in the Medicare cost reports is certified by hospital management
when the report is filed. Any changes resulting from desk or field audits by Medicare and subsequently included in
the Hospital Cost Report Information System (HCRIS) database have also been reflected in the calculations.
Excludes partial-year Medicare cost reports, hospitals where 30% or more of total inpatient beds are non-acute, and
hospitals where the computed metric is more than 2 standard deviations from the mean.
October 2010 5
6. Total Profit Margin - Summary
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Ranked by Number of Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less 2.21% 1.02% 20 1.13% (1.01%) 22 5.41% 5.62% 23
201 to 300 Beds 1.39% 2.73% 30 (1.45%) (0.23%) 36 3.52% 5.20% 36
301 to 400 Beds 4.65% 5.42% 34 1.06% 1.15% 42 4.17% 4.76% 45
401 to 500 Beds 3.51% 3.31% 47 0.60% 1.87% 49 4.98% 5.01% 51
Over 500 Beds 2.50% 3.68% 119 1.41% 3.05% 144 5.95% 5.77% 149
Total All Hospitals 2.83% 3.59% 250 0.85% 1.69% 293 5.20% 5.63% 304
Excluded Cost Reports 15 22 13
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less 3.02% 2.13% 22 2.72% 1.59% 23 4.53% 3.82% 23
201 to 300 Beds 2.97% 2.46% 37 2.98% 2.82% 35 0.27% (1.38%) 36
301 to 400 Beds 4.96% 4.71% 48 3.98% 4.16% 45 3.63% 3.40% 45
401 to 500 Beds 4.42% 5.01% 50 4.33% 5.50% 51 4.21% 3.34% 50
Over 500 Beds 5.63% 5.38% 149 3.83% 4.16% 151 3.24% 3.70% 153
Total All Hospitals 4.82% 5.01% 306 3.75% 4.05% 305 3.20% 3.32% 307
Excluded Cost Reports 13 14 12
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 6
7. Peer Group Comparison – Total Profit Margin
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with 200 Licensed Beds or Less
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 12.52% 11.35% 5 12.88% 12.67% 5 16.50% 17.11% 5
2nd Quartile 3.84% 3.60% 5 2.98% 2.72% 5 7.91% 7.53% 6
3rd Quartile (0.44%) 0.02% 5 (1.78%) (1.48%) 6 2.74% 2.81% 6
4th Quartile (7.09%) (6.89%) 5 (7.30%) (7.90%) 6 (3.65%) (3.48%) 6
Total Population 2.21% 1.02% 20 1.13% (1.01%) 22 5.41% 5.62% 23
Excluded Cost Reports 1 1 1
Total Cost Reports 21 23 24
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 15.23% 15.29% 5 13.58% 15.69% 5 14.52% 14.86% 5
2nd Quartile 4.13% 3.44% 5 3.14% 2.90% 6 5.40% 4.45% 6
3rd Quartile 1.04% 0.94% 6 0.84% 1.18% 6 2.35% 2.19% 6
4th Quartile (6.10%) (6.17%) 6 (4.87%) (3.61%) 6 (2.48%) (1.55%) 6
Total Population 3.02% 2.13% 22 2.72% 1.59% 23 4.53% 3.82% 23
Excluded Cost Reports 3 2 2
Total Cost Reports 25 25 25
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 7
8. Peer Group Comparison – Total Profit Margin
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 201 and 300 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 9.44% 7.05% 7 5.90% 4.16% 9 12.48% 12.34% 9
2nd Quartile 5.26% 5.56% 7 1.51% 1.86% 9 7.72% 7.55% 9
3rd Quartile 0.70% 0.45% 8 (2.38%) (1.79%) 9 1.15% 1.56% 9
4th Quartile (8.34%) (9.05%) 8 (10.82%) (11.27%) 9 (7.28%) (7.46%) 9
Total Population 1.39% 2.73% 30 (1.45%) (0.23%) 36 3.52% 5.20% 36
Excluded Cost Reports 4 4 3
Total Cost Reports 34 40 39
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 11.24% 11.46% 9 12.52% 12.46% 8 9.90% 9.68% 9
2nd Quartile 7.03% 7.41% 9 6.54% 7.00% 9 2.98% 3.54% 9
3rd Quartile 1.14% 1.76% 9 0.93% 0.86% 9 (2.46%) (2.19%) 9
4th Quartile (6.49%) (4.06%) 10 (7.01%) (4.53%) 9 (9.34%) (7.29%) 9
Total Population 2.97% 2.46% 37 2.98% 2.82% 35 0.27% (1.38%) 36
Excluded Cost Reports 3 5 4
Total Cost Reports 40 40 40
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 8
9. Peer Group Comparison – Total Profit Margin
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 301 and 400 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 15.33% 15.33% 8 10.66% 9.27% 10 13.21% 12.22% 11
2nd Quartile 7.58% 7.76% 8 4.82% 5.91% 10 7.26% 7.01% 11
3rd Quartile 3.47% 3.39% 9 (0.79%) (0.37%) 11 1.89% 1.61% 11
4th Quartile (6.27%) (6.98%) 9 (9.23%) (9.11%) 11 (4.85%) (3.48%) 12
Total Population 4.65% 5.42% 34 1.06% 1.15% 42 4.17% 4.76% 45
Excluded Cost Reports 2 5 3
Total Cost Reports 36 47 48
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 13.99% 12.50% 12 11.95% 11.18% 11 11.20% 10.87% 11
2nd Quartile 6.42% 6.16% 12 6.18% 6.06% 11 4.83% 4.57% 11
3rd Quartile 2.63% 1.92% 12 2.34% 2.66% 11 2.27% 2.38% 11
4th Quartile (3.21%) (2.28%) 12 (3.83%) (3.06%) 12 (3.16%) (3.20%) 12
Total Population 4.96% 4.71% 48 3.98% 4.16% 45 3.63% 3.40% 45
Excluded Cost Reports 0 3 3
Total Cost Reports 48 48 48
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 9
10. Peer Group Comparison – Total Profit Margin
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 401 and 500 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 12.30% 11.47% 11 9.00% 8.10% 12 13.89% 13.87% 12
2nd Quartile 6.26% 6.29% 12 4.08% 4.31% 12 7.52% 7.70% 13
3rd Quartile 1.93% 2.17% 12 0.23% 0.59% 12 3.24% 3.04% 13
4th Quartile (5.73%) (4.05%) 12 (10.00%) (9.38%) 13 (4.06%) (1.44%) 13
Total Population 3.51% 3.31% 47 0.60% 1.87% 49 4.98% 5.01% 51
Excluded Cost Reports 3 2 1
Total Cost Reports 50 51 52
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 13.41% 12.98% 12 11.56% 11.89% 12 11.74% 10.93% 12
2nd Quartile 7.08% 7.05% 12 6.97% 6.63% 13 7.23% 7.49% 12
3rd Quartile 2.75% 2.50% 13 3.34% 3.65% 13 2.40% 2.58% 13
4th Quartile (4.66%) (3.64%) 13 (4.00%) (2.60%) 13 (3.74%) (2.35%) 13
Total Population 4.42% 5.01% 50 4.33% 5.50% 51 4.21% 3.34% 50
Excluded Cost Reports 2 1 2
Total Cost Reports 52 52 52
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 10
11. Peer Group Comparison – Total Profit Margin
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Over 500 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 11.55% 10.64% 29 10.32% 9.14% 36 14.79% 15.33% 37
2nd Quartile 5.28% 5.26% 30 4.57% 4.68% 36 7.94% 7.87% 37
3rd Quartile 1.35% 1.35% 30 (0.44%) (0.73%) 36 4.02% 4.07% 37
4th Quartile (7.88%) (5.96%) 30 (8.83%) (7.70%) 36 (2.72%) (0.05%) 38
Total Population 2.50% 3.68% 119 1.41% 3.05% 144 5.95% 5.77% 149
Excluded Cost Reports 5 10 5
Total Cost Reports 124 154 154
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 13.31% 12.69% 37 11.22% 10.63% 37 10.72% 9.44% 38
2nd Quartile 7.09% 7.25% 37 5.83% 5.91% 38 5.71% 5.65% 38
3rd Quartile 3.80% 3.57% 37 2.22% 2.07% 38 1.78% 1.77% 38
4th Quartile (1.47%) 0.20% 38 (3.76%) (2.52%) 38 (5.03%) (2.65%) 39
Total Population 5.63% 5.38% 149 3.83% 4.16% 151 3.24% 3.70% 153
Excluded Cost Reports 5 3 1
Total Cost Reports 154 154 154
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 11
12. Peer Group Comparison – Total Profit Margin
Total Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Regardless of Bed Size
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 12.03% 11.15% 60 9.77% 8.90% 72 14.24% 13.62% 74
2nd Quartile 5.65% 5.89% 62 4.03% 4.30% 72 7.74% 7.72% 76
3rd Quartile 1.54% 1.66% 64 (0.73%) (1.05%) 74 3.14% 3.15% 76
4th Quartile (7.25%) (5.96%) 64 (9.21%) (8.31%) 75 (3.87%) (2.15%) 78
Total Population 2.83% 3.59% 250 0.85% 1.69% 293 5.20% 5.63% 304
Excluded Cost Reports 15 22 13
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 13.32% 12.47% 75 11.69% 11.18% 73 11.11% 10.55% 75
2nd Quartile 6.78% 6.93% 75 5.94% 5.97% 77 5.47% 5.53% 76
3rd Quartile 2.91% 2.94% 77 2.17% 2.05% 77 1.51% 1.92% 77
4th Quartile (3.25%) (1.79%) 79 (4.27%) (2.89%) 78 (4.83%) (3.61%) 79
Total Population 4.82% 5.01% 306 3.75% 4.05% 305 3.20% 3.32% 307
Excluded Cost Reports 13 14 12
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 12
13. Total Operating Profit Margin - Summary
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Ranked by Number of Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less (3.21%) 0.05% 15 (4.41%) (5.70%) 17 (3.66%) (2.89%) 18
201 to 300 Beds (1.51%) (0.60%) 25 (0.80%) 0.53% 28 (1.25%) 1.97% 32
301 to 400 Beds (0.38%) 1.18% 33 (3.48%) (3.34%) 43 (3.24%) (2.71%) 43
401 to 500 Beds (1.95%) (1.18%) 40 (3.46%) (2.56%) 42 (2.97%) (0.93%) 45
Over 500 Beds (0.85%) 0.08% 111 (2.63%) (1.91%) 135 (1.59%) (0.81%) 136
Total All Hospitals (1.21%) (0.23%) 224 (2.82%) (2.09%) 265 (2.17%) (1.33%) 274
Excluded Cost Reports 41 50 43
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less (0.76%) (1.87%) 18 (2.80%) (1.95%) 19 (4.10%) (4.07%) 18
201 to 300 Beds (1.76%) (1.18%) 33 (2.24%) (1.20%) 31 (4.82%) (3.87%) 32
301 to 400 Beds (2.37%) (2.45%) 45 (3.94%) (4.70%) 44 (3.75%) (2.77%) 44
401 to 500 Beds (2.99%) (1.26%) 45 (2.30%) (0.30%) 44 (2.89%) (0.70%) 46
Over 500 Beds (2.08%) (1.00%) 140 (2.87%) (1.58%) 138 (2.77%) (1.74%) 135
Total All Hospitals (2.15%) (1.36%) 281 (2.88%) (1.54%) 276 (3.27%) (1.87%) 275
Excluded Cost Reports 38 43 44
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 13
14. Peer Group Comparison – Total Operating Profit Margin
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with 200 Licensed Beds or Less
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 13.17% 11.58% 3 9.59% 10.04% 4 13.25% 12.69% 4
2nd Quartile 2.32% 2.67% 4 0.22% 0.90% 4 3.00% 3.05% 4
3rd Quartile (4.39%) (5.51%) 4 (7.24%) (7.24%) 4 (6.69%) (5.33%) 5
4th Quartile (19.85%) (21.00%) 4 (17.04%) (16.20%) 5 (19.47%) (17.32%) 5
Total Population (3.21%) 0.05% 15 (4.41%) (5.70%) 17 (3.66%) (2.89%) 18
Excluded Cost Reports 6 6 6
Total Cost Reports 21 23 24
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 16.29% 16.42% 4 13.82% 14.95% 4 9.24% 9.94% 4
2nd Quartile 5.50% 5.27% 4 3.56% 3.93% 5 2.77% 2.80% 4
3rd Quartile (3.97%) (4.34%) 5 (6.04%) (6.67%) 5 (6.84%) (7.34%) 5
4th Quartile (16.21%) (14.23%) 5 (19.21%) (19.57%) 5 (17.53%) (19.16%) 5
Total Population (0.76%) (1.87%) 18 (2.80%) (1.95%) 19 (4.10%) (4.07%) 18
Excluded Cost Reports 7 6 7
Total Cost Reports 25 25 25
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 14
15. Peer Group Comparison – Total Operating Profit Margin
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 201 and 300 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 14.03% 14.65% 6 11.04% 10.09% 7 11.16% 10.46% 8
2nd Quartile 3.34% 3.21% 6 2.54% 3.07% 7 3.74% 3.70% 8
3rd Quartile (5.25%) (5.65%) 6 (2.97%) (2.66%) 7 (4.35%) (3.33%) 8
4th Quartile (15.77%) (15.20%) 7 (13.79%) (12.74%) 7 (15.53%) (15.03%) 8
Total Population (1.51%) (0.60%) 25 (0.80%) 0.53% 28 (1.25%) 1.97% 32
Excluded Cost Reports 9 12 7
Total Cost Reports 34 40 39
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 11.39% 10.34% 8 11.72% 8.82% 7 8.19% 6.77% 8
2nd Quartile 1.71% 1.37% 8 1.72% 1.80% 8 (1.60%) (1.76%) 8
3rd Quartile (4.64%) (4.85%) 8 (4.85%) (3.22%) 8 (8.17%) (8.60%) 8
4th Quartile (13.99%) (13.58%) 9 (15.81%) (15.47%) 8 (17.72%) (18.37%) 8
Total Population (1.76%) (1.18%) 33 (2.24%) (1.20%) 31 (4.82%) (3.87%) 32
Excluded Cost Reports 7 9 8
Total Cost Reports 40 40 40
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 15
16. Peer Group Comparison – Total Operating Profit Margin
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 301 and 400 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 9.86% 9.18% 8 7.82% 7.27% 10 8.52% 8.15% 10
2nd Quartile 2.54% 2.81% 8 (0.03%) 0.09% 11 0.02% (1.30%) 11
3rd Quartile (0.77%) (0.90%) 8 (5.77%) (5.24%) 11 (5.99%) (5.39%) 11
4th Quartile (11.73%) (12.00%) 9 (14.94%) (12.89%) 11 (14.44%) (12.77%) 11
Total Population (0.38%) 1.18% 33 (3.48%) (3.34%) 43 (3.24%) (2.71%) 43
Excluded Cost Reports 3 4 5
Total Cost Reports 36 47 48
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 8.53% 7.31% 11 7.99% 6.44% 11 8.49% 5.24% 11
2nd Quartile 0.12% (0.07%) 11 (1.41%) (1.07%) 11 (0.76%) (0.93%) 11
3rd Quartile (4.54%) (3.76%) 11 (6.52%) (5.63%) 11 (5.72%) (5.65%) 11
4th Quartile (12.67%) (9.71%) 12 (15.84%) (15.51%) 11 (16.99%) (17.58%) 11
Total Population (2.37%) (2.45%) 45 (3.94%) (4.70%) 44 (3.75%) (2.77%) 44
Excluded Cost Reports 3 4 4
Total Cost Reports 48 48 48
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 16
17. Peer Group Comparison – Total Operating Profit Margin
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 401 and 500 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 7.06% 5.49% 10 6.28% 4.56% 10 6.15% 4.96% 11
2nd Quartile 0.56% 0.32% 10 0.26% 1.14% 10 0.78% 0.52% 11
3rd Quartile (4.02%) (4.12%) 10 (4.75%) (4.84%) 11 (3.48%) (3.41%) 11
4th Quartile (11.41%) (10.67%) 10 (14.42%) (12.46%) 11 (14.31%) (12.28%) 12
Total Population (1.95%) (1.18%) 40 (3.46%) (2.56%) 42 (2.97%) (0.93%) 45
Excluded Cost Reports 10 9 7
Total Cost Reports 50 51 52
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 7.68% 5.93% 11 7.32% 4.41% 11 7.78% 5.97% 11
2nd Quartile 1.55% 1.41% 11 1.55% 1.67% 11 0.44% 0.20% 11
3rd Quartile (4.55%) (4.28%) 11 (2.65%) (1.75%) 11 (2.52%) (1.97%) 12
4th Quartile (15.50%) (14.99%) 12 (15.43%) (15.83%) 11 (16.09%) (17.58%) 12
Total Population (2.99%) (1.26%) 45 (2.30%) (0.30%) 44 (2.89%) (0.70%) 46
Excluded Cost Reports 7 8 6
Total Cost Reports 52 52 52
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 17
18. Peer Group Comparison – Total Operating Profit Margin
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Over 500 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 9.58% 9.96% 27 8.14% 6.73% 33 10.39% 9.04% 34
2nd Quartile 1.98% 1.88% 28 0.66% 0.57% 34 1.39% 1.44% 34
3rd Quartile (2.76%) (2.59%) 28 (4.88%) (4.97%) 34 (3.84%) (4.04%) 34
4th Quartile (11.84%) (11.02%) 28 (14.13%) (13.04%) 34 (14.28%) (14.24%) 34
Total Population (0.85%) 0.08% 111 (2.63%) (1.91%) 135 (1.59%) (0.81%) 136
Excluded Cost Reports 13 19 18
Total Cost Reports 124 154 154
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 8.42% 7.23% 35 7.30% 6.43% 34 6.87% 5.82% 33
2nd Quartile 0.91% 0.84% 35 0.33% 0.33% 34 0.34% 0.39% 34
3rd Quartile (3.67%) (3.53%) 35 (4.12%) (4.21%) 35 (3.44%) (3.10%) 34
4th Quartile (13.96%) (13.86%) 35 (14.63%) (12.77%) 35 (14.59%) (13.37%) 34
Total Population (2.08%) (1.00%) 140 (2.87%) (1.58%) 138 (2.77%) (1.74%) 135
Excluded Cost Reports 14 16 19
Total Cost Reports 154 154 154
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 18
19. Peer Group Comparison – Total Operating Profit Margin
Total Operating Profit Margin
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Regardless of Bed Size
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 9.85% 9.49% 54 8.21% 6.95% 64 9.68% 8.74% 67
2nd Quartile 1.98% 1.88% 56 0.66% 0.83% 66 1.44% 1.67% 68
3rd Quartile (3.08%) (2.78%) 56 (4.95%) (4.94%) 67 (4.39%) (4.02%) 69
4th Quartile (12.77%) (11.70%) 58 (14.49%) (13.04%) 68 (14.82%) (14.17%) 70
Total Population (1.21%) (0.23%) 224 (2.82%) (2.09%) 265 (2.17%) (1.33%) 274
Excluded Cost Reports 41 50 43
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 9.12% 8.33% 69 8.27% 7.05% 67 7.58% 6.04% 67
2nd Quartile 1.25% 1.07% 69 0.64% 0.33% 69 0.09% 0.17% 68
3rd Quartile (4.08%) (3.90%) 70 (4.48%) (4.54%) 70 (4.42%) (3.70%) 70
4th Quartile (14.16%) (13.72%) 73 (15.41%) (15.36%) 70 (15.79%) (16.17%) 70
Total Population (2.15%) (1.36%) 281 (2.88%) (1.54%) 276 (3.27%) (1.87%) 275
Excluded Cost Reports 38 43 44
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 19
20. Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues - Summary
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Ranked by Number of Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less 54.55% 56.83% 15 54.26% 56.75% 16 53.60% 52.44% 17
201 to 300 Beds 51.54% 52.25% 26 50.93% 49.77% 29 49.14% 48.25% 29
301 to 400 Beds 48.04% 48.27% 30 50.86% 50.05% 40 51.83% 52.48% 41
401 to 500 Beds 50.91% 48.96% 43 52.57% 52.37% 45 50.90% 50.18% 46
Over 500 Beds 49.52% 48.68% 109 50.75% 50.33% 134 50.34% 49.27% 139
Total All Hospitals 50.16% 49.20% 223 51.31% 50.67% 264 50.73% 50.10% 272
Excluded Cost Reports 42 51 45
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less 51.93% 54.87% 19 49.60% 50.37% 17 52.87% 54.01% 18
201 to 300 Beds 49.95% 51.04% 29 51.23% 52.98% 28 51.34% 52.40% 32
301 to 400 Beds 51.93% 51.76% 44 52.20% 52.78% 43 52.99% 53.54% 43
401 to 500 Beds 50.99% 49.93% 47 50.19% 50.03% 47 50.95% 49.96% 46
Over 500 Beds 50.45% 50.13% 139 50.54% 50.42% 138 50.97% 49.94% 135
Total All Hospitals 50.82% 50.24% 278 50.75% 50.53% 273 51.45% 50.99% 274
Excluded Cost Reports 41 46 45
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 20
21. Peer Group Comparison – Total Labor Cost as a Percent of Total Op. Rev.
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with 200 Licensed Beds or Less
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 42.20% 42.87% 3 45.05% 46.03% 4 43.04% 42.41% 4
2nd Quartile 53.37% 54.41% 4 53.09% 53.01% 4 51.40% 51.41% 4
3rd Quartile 57.55% 57.55% 4 58.05% 57.84% 4 56.14% 56.75% 4
4th Quartile 62.01% 60.48% 4 60.86% 60.41% 4 61.78% 62.06% 5
Total Population 54.55% 56.83% 15 54.26% 56.75% 16 53.60% 52.44% 17
Excluded Cost Reports 6 7 7
Total Cost Reports 21 23 24
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 35.33% 35.85% 4 35.79% 37.86% 4 37.76% 38.32% 4
2nd Quartile 48.35% 49.62% 5 46.09% 46.12% 4 50.55% 50.18% 4
3rd Quartile 56.86% 56.27% 5 54.65% 55.26% 4 55.93% 56.26% 5
4th Quartile 63.86% 65.04% 5 59.42% 59.87% 5 63.74% 62.66% 5
Total Population 51.93% 54.87% 19 49.60% 50.37% 17 52.87% 54.01% 18
Excluded Cost Reports 6 8 7
Total Cost Reports 25 25 25
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 21
22. Peer Group Comparison – Total Labor Cost as a Percent of Total Op. Rev.
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 201 and 300 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 38.82% 38.69% 6 39.70% 42.39% 7 37.55% 40.11% 7
2nd Quartile 46.43% 45.42% 6 47.09% 46.78% 7 45.18% 45.02% 7
3rd Quartile 53.60% 54.18% 7 53.23% 53.65% 7 52.70% 54.02% 7
4th Quartile 64.74% 65.85% 7 62.10% 61.81% 8 59.62% 58.86% 8
Total Population 51.54% 52.25% 26 50.93% 49.77% 29 49.14% 48.25% 29
Excluded Cost Reports 8 11 10
Total Cost Reports 34 40 39
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 36.34% 36.18% 7 40.32% 42.74% 7 38.67% 37.83% 8
2nd Quartile 47.42% 47.40% 7 48.60% 47.61% 7 48.65% 49.10% 8
3rd Quartile 54.11% 54.26% 7 54.05% 54.15% 7 54.51% 53.94% 8
4th Quartile 60.44% 59.79% 8 61.95% 63.03% 7 63.52% 62.61% 8
Total Population 49.95% 51.04% 29 51.23% 52.98% 28 51.34% 52.40% 32
Excluded Cost Reports 11 12 8
Total Cost Reports 40 40 40
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 22
23. Peer Group Comparison – Total Labor Cost as a Percent of Total Op. Rev.
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 301 and 400 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 40.71% 40.88% 7 42.26% 43.01% 10 42.09% 43.04% 10
2nd Quartile 45.27% 45.03% 7 48.12% 48.17% 10 48.69% 48.62% 10
3rd Quartile 50.03% 49.85% 8 53.44% 53.69% 10 54.74% 55.30% 10
4th Quartile 54.87% 55.09% 8 59.62% 59.84% 10 60.90% 58.67% 11
Total Population 48.04% 48.27% 30 50.86% 50.05% 40 51.83% 52.48% 41
Excluded Cost Reports 6 7 7
Total Cost Reports 36 47 48
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 42.37% 43.00% 11 42.80% 42.44% 10 45.31% 45.83% 10
2nd Quartile 48.46% 48.01% 11 48.69% 48.10% 11 49.88% 48.94% 11
3rd Quartile 54.77% 55.02% 11 55.11% 55.17% 11 55.14% 55.64% 11
4th Quartile 62.12% 61.36% 11 61.36% 59.83% 11 60.92% 58.46% 11
Total Population 51.93% 51.76% 44 52.20% 52.78% 43 52.99% 53.54% 43
Excluded Cost Reports 4 5 5
Total Cost Reports 48 48 48
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 23
24. Peer Group Comparison – Total Labor Cost as a Percent of Total Op. Rev.
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Between 401 and 500 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 41.59% 42.54% 10 42.92% 43.44% 11 41.45% 41.84% 11
2nd Quartile 47.45% 47.82% 11 49.06% 48.23% 11 47.62% 47.33% 11
3rd Quartile 52.76% 53.16% 11 55.40% 55.74% 11 52.84% 53.16% 12
4th Quartile 61.01% 60.57% 11 62.02% 61.14% 12 60.61% 60.03% 12
Total Population 50.91% 48.96% 43 52.57% 52.37% 45 50.90% 50.18% 46
Excluded Cost Reports 7 6 6
Total Cost Reports 50 51 52
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 41.97% 42.70% 11 42.66% 43.94% 11 42.33% 42.57% 11
2nd Quartile 47.83% 48.19% 12 46.86% 47.17% 12 47.75% 48.15% 11
3rd Quartile 52.37% 52.12% 12 51.74% 52.00% 12 52.30% 52.42% 12
4th Quartile 61.04% 60.20% 12 58.85% 57.84% 12 60.43% 59.78% 12
Total Population 50.99% 49.93% 47 50.19% 50.03% 47 50.95% 49.96% 46
Excluded Cost Reports 5 5 6
Total Cost Reports 52 52 52
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 24
25. Peer Group Comparison – Total Labor Cost as a Percent of Total Op. Rev.
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States with Over 500 Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 41.72% 42.35% 27 42.27% 42.96% 33 41.33% 42.04% 34
2nd Quartile 47.25% 47.27% 27 47.93% 48.28% 33 47.23% 47.07% 35
3rd Quartile 51.20% 51.48% 27 52.31% 52.03% 34 52.26% 52.66% 35
4th Quartile 57.62% 57.29% 28 60.14% 58.63% 34 60.28% 58.43% 35
Total Population 49.52% 48.68% 109 50.75% 50.33% 134 50.34% 49.27% 139
Excluded Cost Reports 15 20 15
Total Cost Reports 124 154 154
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 41.81% 42.36% 34 41.83% 42.29% 34 42.86% 43.68% 33
2nd Quartile 48.27% 48.44% 35 47.85% 47.79% 34 47.84% 48.22% 34
3rd Quartile 52.20% 52.04% 35 52.60% 52.49% 35 53.01% 53.32% 34
4th Quartile 59.26% 57.05% 35 59.55% 58.48% 35 59.94% 58.65% 34
Total Population 50.45% 50.13% 139 50.54% 50.42% 138 50.97% 49.94% 135
Excluded Cost Reports 15 16 19
Total Cost Reports 154 154 154
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 25
26. Peer Group Comparison – Total Labor Cost as a Percent of Total Op. Rev.
Total Labor Cost as a Percentage of Total Operating Revenues
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Regardless of Bed Size
2009 2008 2007
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 41.26% 42.35% 53 42.27% 43.00% 65 41.17% 41.49% 66
2nd Quartile 47.39% 47.29% 55 48.38% 48.23% 65 47.55% 47.59% 67
3rd Quartile 52.08% 52.07% 57 53.44% 53.35% 66 53.00% 53.58% 68
4th Quartile 59.05% 58.01% 58 60.67% 60.09% 68 60.46% 59.10% 71
Total Population 50.16% 49.20% 223 51.31% 50.67% 264 50.73% 50.10% 272
Excluded Cost Reports 42 51 45
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Quartile Rank
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
1st Quartile 40.97% 42.20% 67 41.59% 42.54% 66 42.32% 43.55% 66
2nd Quartile 48.14% 48.25% 70 47.79% 47.62% 68 48.41% 48.54% 68
3rd Quartile 53.16% 52.83% 70 53.12% 53.13% 69 53.60% 53.80% 70
4th Quartile 60.46% 59.62% 71 59.94% 59.40% 70 60.86% 59.90% 70
Total Population 50.82% 50.24% 278 50.75% 50.53% 273 51.45% 50.99% 274
Excluded Cost Reports 41 46 45
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 26
27. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff Per Adjusted Occupied Bed (AOB) - Summary
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff per Adjusted Occupied Bed
All Major Teaching Hospitals in the United States Ranked by Number of Licensed Beds
2009 2008 2007
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less 5.70 4.97 17 5.69 5.10 17 5.44 5.12 17
201 to 300 Beds 5.71 5.54 29 5.71 5.72 31 5.71 5.65 31
301 to 400 Beds 5.43 5.10 29 5.41 5.23 40 5.38 5.26 41
401 to 500 Beds 5.96 5.87 42 5.95 5.85 44 6.02 5.90 46
Over 500 Beds 5.93 5.82 112 5.85 5.78 143 5.75 5.70 143
Total All Hospitals 5.83 5.78 229 5.78 5.72 275 5.71 5.67 278
Excluded Cost Reports 36 40 39
Total Cost Reports 265 315 317
2006 2005 2004
Number of Licensed Beds
Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count
200 Beds or Less 5.52 5.28 19 5.40 5.05 19 5.24 5.03 19
201 to 300 Beds 5.86 5.78 33 5.75 5.61 33 5.71 5.52 34
301 to 400 Beds 5.36 5.13 41 5.29 5.10 41 5.41 5.14 42
401 to 500 Beds 5.91 6.04 43 6.04 5.99 48 6.01 5.96 47
Over 500 Beds 5.81 5.74 143 5.74 5.69 144 5.67 5.65 142
Total All Hospitals 5.75 5.68 279 5.70 5.60 285 5.66 5.58 284
Excluded Cost Reports 40 34 35
Total Cost Reports 319 319 319
Notes:
• Excludes partial-year cost reports and those cost reports deemed to be outliers (e.g., values greater than two standard deviations from the mean of the reported population).
• Excludes Federal, specialty hospitals and general acute care hospitals for which 30% or more of total licensed beds are comprised of sub acute beds.
October 2010 27