Portfolio of Finance-Based Tasks and Calculations
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................3
2.0 Task 1........................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Recent Developments in the Financial and Legal/Regulatory Environment of Health and
Social Care Service Delivery.................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Recent Financial Developments.........................................................................................3
2.1.2 Recent Legal/Regulatory Developments............................................................................4
2.2 The Usefulness of Alternative Funding Options in the Health and Social Care Sector..............5
3.0 Task 2........................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Discuss the business's using UDG Healthcare plc Group's financial performance.....................6
3.1.1 Analysing the Return on Equity (ROE) Using the DuPont Method...................................6
3.1.2 Analysing UDG Healthcare plc Group's Liquidity and Solvency Position........................7
3.1.3 Based on the ratios above, do you think UDG is a viable business?..................................7
3.2 Analysis of the Two Investment Options for UDG Healthcare Using NPV and IRR Techniques
8
4.0 Task 3......................................................................................................................................10
4.1 The Financial Statement Preparation Process..........................................................................10
4.2 How Financial Statements Aid Healthcare Organization Decision-Making............................11
4.3 How UDG Healthcare Plc Group could use its Financial Statements to Make Future
Investment Decisions, Especially in the Current Economic Climate...................................................12
5.0 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................13
References...........................................................................................................................................14
1.0 Introduction
This submission comprises a portfolio of finance-based tasks and calculations from health
and social care contexts. It commences with an analysis of recent developments in health and
social care’s financial and legal/regulatory environments, including shifts towards alternative
payment models and oversight approaches spanning meta-regulation to markets. Next is an
appraisal of alternative funding mechanisms’ usefulness examining controversial options like
private finance initiatives, agency staff partnerships, competitive tendering, and outsourcing.
Thereafter, financial statement analysis evaluates the performance of healthcare firm UDG
from multiple perspectives encompassing profitability, liquidity, investment returns and more
using tools like DuPont analysis and net present valuation of service proposals. Finally, the
compilation procedures involved in producing financial statements receive elaboration for
governance directors assuming financial oversight duties amid sector turbulence.
Communication utilities enabling evidence-based stewardship also undergo explanation to
boost financial literacy.
2.0 Task 1
2.1 Recent Developments in the Financial and Legal/Regulatory Environment of
Health and Social Care Service Delivery
The health and social care sector has undergone major upheavals in its financial and
legal/regulatory environment over the past decade. These major developments are analysed
below.
2.1.1 Recent Financial Developments
Seeking to shift incentives away from fragmented fee-for-service (FFS) payment,
policymakers championed a wave of Alternative Payment Models (APMs) this past decade,
including the prominent Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) and Primary Care First
(PCF) (CMS, 2023). These models provide avenues for advanced primary care delivery with
downside financial risk. CPC+ (2017-2022) empowered over 3,100 practices across 18
regions, offering population-based payments and care coordination fees to fund expanded
primary services, along with bonuses for quality metrics (Peck et al., 2022). However,
limitations around scale, fragmentation across payers, and reporting burdens emerged (ACP,
2022).
Meanwhile, PCF (2020-2025) extended CPC+’s reach, covering over 4,000 practices in
commercial and Medicare risk arrangements across 26 regions (CMS, 2023). Though uptake
lagged due to unfamiliar financial risk, participating organizations report investments in
staffing, health equity and behavioral health integration (Fu et al., 2022). However,
challenges administering multiple pay-for-performance schemes remain (ACP, 2020).
Seeking to further APM penetration and address limitations, the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) unveiled the Making Care Primary (MCP) model as CPC+’s
successor from 2024-2035 across eight states. It notably expands access for small and
inexperienced entities through options lacking downside risk, while building progressively to
partial capitation (CMS, 2023). While uptake of APMs like CPC+ and PCF has been modest
to date, emerging evidence indicates largely positive impacts on quality and costs.
2.1.2 Recent Legal/Regulatory Developments
Traditionally, centralized command-and-control regulation dominated the governance of
health and social care with prescriptive rules enforced through legislated sanctions (Dixon-
Woods et al., 2011). However, critics argued excessive bureaucracy obstructed
responsiveness and innovation (McSherry and Pearce, 2011). Since the 1980s, reforms
progressively curtailed top-down control in favour of pluralized meta-governance,
professional self-regulation, and market mechanisms (Exworthy et al., 2010).
Meta-regulation involves monitoring the rigour of organization’s self-regulating systems
(Gilad, 2010). However failures indicating ineffective self-monitoring provoked recent UK
reforms augmenting meta-governance. Expanded CQC inspection powers, local patient
advocacy services, and a national investigatory body now backstop provider self-audit
obligations (Dixon-Woods et al., 2011). On the other hand, self-regulation relies on
professional collectives formulating context-sensitive peer-enforced codes of conduct
(Baggot, 2011). It intends preserving discretion while ensuring accountability via communal
rule-setting (Davies, 2013).
Since 1990s marketisation, financial incentives, reputational rankings, tendering, and patient
choice put performance pressures on providers (Romzek et al., 2014). This allows
government priority-setting at a distance through contracting processes (Saltman, 2003).
Proponents cite quality and efficiency gains from competition, while critics argue market
fragmentation which obstructs integrated care (Suter et al., 2014).
2.2 The Usefulness of Alternative Funding Options in the Health and Social Care
Sector
With budget restraints mounting in health and social care amid rising demographic pressures,
policymakers turned increasingly to private sector financing options to expand system
capacity. However, while such models offer injections of capital and expertise, they proved
controversial regarding costs and unintended consequences. As such, key mechanisms like
Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), agency partnerships, competitive tendering reforms and
outsourcing models are examined to identify benefits versus documented risks based on
documented evidence.
Private Finance Initiatives allows private firms to finance major infrastructure projects like
hospitals in exchange for decades-long contracts that repay costs through annual fees. By
2015 over £13 billion was spent on 117 PFI hospitals, while annual charges approached £2.5
billion across over 100 schemes (Acerete et al., 2015). Critics highlight several drawbacks,
however. High maintenance fees often consume up to 25% of hospital budgets for 30 years -
diverting funds from care (BMJ, 2018). Inflexible long-term contracts also obstructs adapting
services to meet changing community needs (Edwards, 2018).
Also, health trusts' extensive reliance on temporary “agency” staff to plug shortages provides
responsive capacity but proved increasingly expensive. Overall spending on contingent staff
rose 25% annually since 2010, reaching £2.4 billion in 2016 (Imison and Castle-Clarke,
2022). Such costly overruns on supplementary staff distracted from sustainable workforce
planning. Numerous health organizations also outsourced ancillary services like payroll and
cleaning to private providers, aiming to cut costs and rationalize resources (Charlesworth et
al., 2021). However, evidence indicates patchy savings even before substantial transaction
and contract management costs, while fragmented systems introduced quality concerns over
poor communication and coordination (NHS England, 2013). Trusts now explore
countermeasures like staff banks where auxiliary workers agree lower rates in exchange for
flexible placements. Partnerships across providers may also yield economies of scale by
pooling standby labor regionally (Ham et al., 2013).
Problems also emerged around revised charging mechanisms for services like elder social
care. While means-testing for state support boosts sustainability, service users now self-fund
care until assets deplete below £23,250 (Baxter and Glendinning, 2014). Such opaque
charging breeds distrust and deters elderly from using services until reaching crisis.
Competitive tendering processes also risk a “race to the bottom” where quality suffers as
providers cut corners to offer lowest prices (Charlesworth et al., 2021). More collaborative
models like alliance contracting show promise going forward.
3.0 Task 2
3.1 Discuss the business's using UDG Healthcare plc Group's financial performance
3.1.1 Analysing the Return on Equity (ROE) Using the DuPont Method
The DuPont formula is a framework for analyzing fundamental performance popularized by
the DuPont Corporation. It is used to decompose the different drivers of return on equity
(ROE) into net profit margin, asset turnover ratio, and equity multiplier. The calculation of
the ROE is represented in table 1.
Table 1: Calculation of the Return on Equity (ROE)
2019 2020
Net Profit Margin [(Net
4.43% 7.26%
Income/Revenue) * 100]
Asset Turnover
(Revenue/Average Total
0.83 0.73
Assets)
Equity Multiplier (Average
Total Assets / Average
1.73 1.79
Shareholders' Equity)
Return On Equity (Net
Profit Margin x Asset
6.36% 9.49%
Turnover x Equity
Multiplier)
From the analysis, it is evident that UDG Healthcare improved its net profit margin
substantially from 4.43% in 2019 to 7.26% in 2020. While UDG strengthened net margins, its
asset turnover declined from 0.83 in 2019 to 0.73 in 2020. This highlighted UDG was not
generating as much revenue relative to the value of its operating assets. Combining the
positive margin effects with negative asset turnover development and mildly higher leverage,
UDG ultimately improved its ROE markedly from 6.36% in 2019 to 9.49% in 2020. This
return relative to shareholder equity surpassed the industry ROE ratio of 8.2%.
3.1.2 Analysing UDG Healthcare plc Group's Liquidity and Solvency Position
UDG Healthcare's liquidity and solvency ratios for 2019-2020 were also analysed using the
current ratio and debt-to-equity ratio. The Current Ratio was calculated using the formula.
Current Ratio = current assets / current liabilities
2020 Current Ratio = $597,165 / $311, 211 = 1.92
2019 Current Ratio = $549,409 / $345,995 = 1.59
From the calculation, it is evident that UDG Healthcare improved its current ratio from 1.59
in 2019 to 1.92 in 2020. This indicates it enhanced its liquidity position, with current assets
nearly twice as high as current liabilities at the end of 2020. However, UDG's current ratio
still lagged the industry average of 2.1. This gap indicates UDG may still carry more liquidity
risk than some competitors.
On the other hand, the Debt-to-Equity Ratio was calculated as:
Debt to Equity ratios = Total debt/Equity share capital
2020 ratio = $780,447 / $14,775= 52.82
2019 ratio = $658,038 / $14,678 = 44.83
From the calculation, it is evident that UDG Healthcare increased its debt-to-equity ratio from
448.3% in 2019 to 528.2% in 2020. This shows debt grew somewhat faster than equity over
the period. By end 2020, UDG had $52.82 of debt financing for every $1 of equity financing
its assets. Given that the ratio rose, UDG's financial leverage remained at substantially higher
levels well above the industry benchmark of 21.3% debt-to-equity.
3.1.3 Based on the ratios above, do you think UDG is a viable business?
The DuPont analysis methodology disaggregates Return on Equity (ROE) into three
components: net profit margin, asset turnover ratio, and equity multiplier (Higgins, 2021).
Assessing these elements enables stakeholders to grasp operational drivers determining
profitability from shareholders’ perspective. Comparing changes in these ratios between
periods and against benchmarks aids financial statement users in evaluating managerial
performance influencing returns. It also helps decision-makers identify strengths to sustain
and weaknesses requiring strategic initiatives targeting areas diverging from norms.
UDG Healthcare increased its ROE substantially from 6.36% in 2019 to 9.49% in 2020. This
resulted primarily from significant net margin expansion as efficiency declines were offset by
higher financial leverage. While notable ROE growth occurred, UDG continues lagging its
industry average of 8.2% as of 2019. But the latest 9.49% 2020 return finally surpasses sector
benchmarks, indicating strengthened profit drivers. Especially amid low leverage,
maximizing net margin and asset efficiency presents the foremost opportunity delivering
equity returns outperforming peers more consistently. Thereby DuPont analysis identifies
focusing management efforts on margins and productivity as imperative.
3.2 Analysis of the Two Investment Options for UDG Healthcare Using NPV and
IRR Techniques
Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) are two key investment appraisal
techniques that utilize discounted cash flow analysis to evaluate and compare projects (Ross
et al., 2013). Net Present Value represents the present value of all future cash flows minus the
initial investment. It relies on discounting future cash flows to current monetary terms using
the cost of capital as the discount rate (Finkler et al., 2016). A higher NPV indicates greater
overall value creation for the firm thus signaling a more attractive investment (Adler, 2000).
UDG’s Premium offering requires a £550,000 initial investment and produces £597,128 in
discounted cash flows over five years using the 10% capital cost as discount rate. On the
other hand, the Basic option needs a £475,000 initial investment for £510,441 in discounted
cash flows. A company's capital cost represents the minimum return required on investments
to satisfy debt and equity investors (Adler, 2000). It reflects the blended investor return
expectation used to discount future cash flows to current monetary terms when evaluating
projects. Considering this, the NPVs are:
Premium NPV = £597,128 - £550,000 = £47,128
Basic NPV = £510,441 - £475,000 = £35,441
With a substantially higher NPV, the Premium service option adds more monetary value for
UDG Healthcare over the investment horizon.
Table: NPV and IRR calculation for the two investment options
Cash flows Premium Cash Present Basic Cash Flow Present value
Flow (Future value (Future value) [FV/(1+r)n]
value) [FV/(1+r)n]
Initial Investment £550,000 - £475,000 -
Year 1 £110,000 £100000 £110,000 £100,000
Year 2 £130,000 £107438.02 £120,000 £99,173.55
Year 3 £160,000 £120210.37 £130,000 £97,670.92
Year 4 £190,000 £129772.56 £140,000 £95,621.88
Year 5 £185,000 £114870.44 £160,000 £99,347.41
Residual Value £40,000 £24836.85 £30,000 £18,627.64
Total Cash Flow £597,128.24 £510,441.41
NPV (PV – Initial £47,128.24 £35,441.41
Investment)
IRR 12.92% 12.64%
The Internal Rate of Return represents the discount rate making NPV equal zero (Ross et al.,
2013). A higher IRR indicates an investment generating returns exceeding required
shareholder targeted returns embodied in the capital cost. Both the Premium and Basic
options generated IRRs exceeding 10% - with Premium producing a 12.92% IRR and Basic a
12.64% IRR. This indicates both investments are expected to yield returns higher than
shareholders require as embodied in the 10% capital cost. Essentially, an investment with an
IRR surpassing the capital cost earns greater returns. Considering NPV and IRR
methodologies with UDG Healthcare’s 10% cost of capital benchmark, the Premium service
option maximizes shareholder value creation and returns. The £47,128 NPV favors
Premium’s £12,687 advantage over Basic. Premium’s 12.92% IRR also exceeds Basic’s
12.64%, both surpassing UDG’s hurdle rate. Hence Premium is the recommended investment
choice.
4.0 Task 3
4.1 The Financial Statement Preparation Process
The process of preparing general purpose financial statements serves to formally record,
report and disclose the financial position and performance of UDG Healthcare over the
accounting period as required under accounting standards framework and corporate
governance regulations (Elliot and Elliott, 2011). Compiling the transparent disclosures
contained within financial statements relies upon a systematic sequence of accounting
processes capturing and translating multifaceted enterprise activities into quantified
performance representations. This sequence commenced with identifying relevant business
events for recognition as accounting entries, encompassing both cash flows and obligations
when liabilities and assets arise rather than eventual settlement under accrual practices
(Eilifsen and Messier, 2015). Information systems prompt comprehensive inclusion heeding
thresholds ensuring faithful completeness.
Thereafter individual transactions record under the double-entry mechanism with offsetting
debits and credits maintaining transactional duality across operational and nominal ledgers
representing specifics like staff payroll, facility expenses and patient revenues (Whittington
and Delany, 2016). Composite ledgers and accounts coherently accumulate activities into
summarized trial balances with equal debits and credits confirming classification accuracy or
else indicating misstatements requiring redress to achieve self-correcting ledger alignments.
With processing capturing underlying activities largely completed, the trial balance
representing the preliminary account of periodic transactions still requires additional
balancing adjustments so that reporting aligns with external disclosure standards and convey
faithful portrayals (Kieso et al, 2020). Depreciation allocating asset utilization across
expected life exemplifies managers’ indispensable adjustments enabling fair representation
ahead of independent audit affirmations.
Finally, the iterative formulation process concludes as certified statements get structurally
compiled across rectified underlying accounts detailing financial position and performance
for reliance by capital providers and other stakeholders in assessing organizational
stewardship amid healthcare sector turbulence. We revisit analyzing statement revelations
subsequently. Please advise any requests to elaborate further on the compilation mechanics
enabling transparent disclosures.
4.2 How Financial Statements Aid Healthcare Organization Decision-Making
Financial statements constitute a fundamental infrastructure for evidence-based decisions in
healthcare entities, given pervasive resource constraints (Linn et al, 2022). Standardized
reporting constitutes a navigation system amid turbulence by illuminating strategic decision
parameters encompassing capacity, liquidity, profitability and context. This helps in the
formulation of enterprise strategy which necessitates understanding the current position.
Components of financial statement such as the balance sheet furnishes stakeholders with
decision-useful visibility into asset strength financing operational capacity, while indicating
liability realities demanding obligatory disbursements (Drake and Fabozzi, 2012). The
granularity on liquidity and working capital carries implications for growth financing and risk
tolerance decisiveness.
Furthermore, income statements produce indispensable income quantification necessary for
budgeting processes, projecting investments, and forecasting returns conditional on existent
margins and cost structures (Finkler et al, 2016). Modelling ‘what-if’ scenarios relies on
historical cost-revenue-profit linkages indicated across various healthcare service lines. This
assists configuration decisions weighing financial viability of service expansions, resource
allocation etc. Moreover, cash flow analyses supplement by unveiling whether reported
profits actually convert into surplus cash which critically determines debt servicing,
operations continuity, capital investments and other substantial outlays involved in service
delivery amidst razor-thin healthcare margins (Health Research Board, 2017). Thus, income
statements inject factuality for difficult decisions on balancing present outlays against future
returns.
Notes containing segmental reporting, earnings-per-share, related party’s transactions and
among others imparts integral contextualization for insightful interpretation when appraising
performance, opportunity costs and stakeholder tradeoffs, entailed in strategic commitment of
scarce healthcare funds (Whittington and Delany, 2016). As such, communicating financial
statement content constitutes indispensable infrastructure for elevating governance as
standardized financial reporting constitutes the quantitative language enabling boards to ask
precise questions guiding organizations towards sustainably making healthcare available even
amidst secular funding challenges. Financial reporting is indispensable in implementing
evidence-based governance amidst healthcare's intrinsic resource constraints and escalating
service needs.
4.3 How UDG Healthcare Plc Group could use its Financial Statements to Make
Future Investment Decisions, especially in the Current Economic Climate
Notwithstanding healthcare’s relative defensive positioning, current economic headwinds
mandate prudent investment planning leveraging financial statements’ revelatory guidance on
navigating turbulence. UDG Healthcare’s strengthening margins and liquidity, responsible
leverage and peer-leading profitability indicates resilience legitimizing strategic
commitments aligned to realistic capacity.
UDG Healthcare’s remarkable top-line growth confirms essential services insulating
revenues amidst downturns. Revenue growth and high asset turnover confirms UDG’s
services remain sought after despite inflationary pressures and recession risks, though margin
expansion lags sector benchmarks. To outpace its peers, UDG need to harness its existing
market strength and foundations to capture segments competitors relinquish during cutbacks.
However margin underperformance signals the need for productivity initiatives to achieve
cost leadership. UDG should also leverage promising income trends buoying reliable cash
flows by investigating productivity improvements which deliver superior margin trajectories
that reinforce mid-term investment capabilities. Leveraging technology and workflows which
adopt industrial-engineering efficiency techniques promises optimizing labor utilization
despite inflationary headwinds (Adrion et al, 2022). Investing now strengthens through-
cycleearnings compounding flexibility for continued gains realization.
Furthermore, evaluating accelerating infrastructure upgrades promises savings which
outpaces borrowing rates. UDG Healthcare’s considerable liquidity and low leverage
furnishes advantageous financing capacity precisely when capital intensive healthcare
systems bifurcates between thriving and failing players. Repricing existing debt also promises
accessing cheaper borrowing costs funding replacement cycles unlike less prepared rivals.
Strong liquidity furnishes flexibility for funding portfolio restructuring or acquisitions; debt
repricing could access low-cost financing windows offsetting rising interest obligations
before peaks confirms UDG’s enviable balance sheet strength, especially given healthcare’s
heaviest capital demands lie amid rising equipment and technology costs (Fitch Ratings,
2022). While economic conditions counsel conserving liquidity, UDG’s solvency buffers
legitimize accelerating competitive differentiation via select investments like digitization.
Despite turbulence, capital markets continue funding credibly positioned healthcare
providers. UDG’s peer-leading ROE confirms investments reliably converts to bottom line
returns which secures access to growth capital, if advantageous, for market consolidation or
capacity enhancement (Kenton, 2022). Maintaining profitability also signals UDG’s
reliability servicing debts uninterruptedly. Overall, UDG boasts progressive financials
constraining turbulence impacts through robust cash flows. Aligned investment leveraging
realistic capacity projections promises extending its leadership position.
5.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, this finance portfolio touches on vital issues in contemporary health and social
care contexts. Analysis of the operating environment details seismic shifts in oversight and
funding models influencing sector governance while the examination of financing approaches
provides grounded perspectives guiding responsible investment. Corporate financial
statement analysis in UDG Healthcare reveals strengths, opportunities and peer
benchmarking insights directing strategy. Discussion of compilation procedures boosts
financial literacy empowering leadership oversight.
Collectively, the tasks address real-world developments, analytical methodologies and
transparency processes constituting essential tools for decision-makers pursuing effective
stewardship despite endemic funding threats and constraints in delivering sustainable quality
care. Equipping leadership with such financial skills and perspectives promises greater
resilience navigating the turbulence and complexity inherent in managing scarce healthcare
resources.
References
Acerete, B., Stafford, A. and Stapleton, P. (2015). New global health care PFI developments.
Journal of Accountancy and Public Policy, 34(2), pp. 132–154.
Adler, T.R. (2000). Why DEA is beating NPV and IRR. Strategic Finance, 81(9), pp. 49-53.
Adrion, E. R., Aucott, J. N., Lemke, K. W. and Weiner, J. P. (2022). Health Care Efficiency
Gains with Industrial Engineering Collaboration. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care
Organization, Provision, and Financing, 59, pp. 1-13.
American College of Physicians (ACP) (2022). What policymakers need to know about
advanced primary care models. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians.
American College of Physicians (ACP) (2020). Primary Care First Model: Primary Care First
Model Benefits, Drawback, and Recommendations for Model Improvement. Ann Intern
Med., 173(12):989-990.
Baggot, R. (2011). The garden gazebo – a case study of self-regulation: what should we do
about medical manslaughter? Clinical Medicine, 11(4), pp. 334-336.
Baxter, K. and Glendinning, C. (2014). Making informed choices in social care: the
importance of accessible information. Health, Risk & Society, 16(2), pp. 197-207.
British Medical Journal (BMJ) (2018) Learning from the expensive mistakes of the private
finance initiative. BMJ 2018; 360
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (2023) Making Care Primary. Overview
[online]. CMS. Available at: https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/making-care-
primary [Accessed 3 January 2024].
Charlesworth, A., Johnson, P., Wenzel, L., Seccombe, I. and Gershlick, B. (2021). Securing
a sustainable workforce for the future. Research report. London: Health Foundation.
Davies, H.T.O. (2013). Regulating healthcare quality. BMJ Qual Saf, 22(9), pp. 679-681.
Dixon-Woods, M., McNicol, S. and Martin, G. (2011). Overcoming challenges. London
Journal of Primary Care, 4(1), pp. 33-41.
Drake, P. P. and Fabozzi, F. J. (2012). Analysis of financial statements (Vol. 574). John Wiley
& Sons.
Edwards, N. (2018). Using markets to reform health care. BMJ, 2005;331:1464.
Eilifsen, A. and Messier Jr, W. F. (2015). Materiality guidance of the major public
accounting firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), pp. 3-26.
Elliot, B. and Elliott, J. (2011). Financial accounting and reporting. 15th edn. Harlow:
Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Exworthy, M., Mannion, R. and Powell, M. (2010). Dismantling the NHS? Evaluating the
impact of health reforms. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1-15.
Finkler S. A., Ward D. and Paul Baker J. (2016). Essentials of cost accounting for health
care organizations. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Fitch Ratings (2022) Fitch Affirms Select U.S. Healthcare REITs and Healthcare Facilities
Issuers; Outlook Revised to Stable [Online]. Available at:
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/fitch-affirms-select-us-healthcare-
reits-healthcare-facilities-issuers-outlook-revised-to-stable-03-08-2022 (Accessed 3 January
2024).
Fu, R., Leppin, A., Rimar, J. and Pearson, E. (2022). Association of Primary Care Practice
Participation in Medicare’s Comprehensive Primary Care Model With Health Care
Utilization, Spending, and Quality. JAMA Network Open, 5(4), p.e228810–e228810.
Gilad, S. (2010). It runs in the family: Meta-regulation and its siblings. Regulation &
Governance, 4(4), pp. 485-506.
Ham, C., Berwick, D. and Dixon, J. (2013). Improving quality in the English NHS: A
strategy for action. London: The King's Fund.
Health Research Board (2017). Pressures in Irish healthcare: recognizing strategic pressures
and opportunities for developing the system. Dublin: Health Research Board.
Higgins, R. C. (2021). Analysis for financial management. Waveland Press.
Imison, C. and Castle-Clarke, S. (2022). Key lessons from 10 years of the NHS bank
programme [Online]. Available at https://www.nhsconfed.org/NHSReset/key-lessons-from-
10-years-of-the-NHS-bank-programme2022 (Accessed 3 January 2024).
Kenton, W. (2022) Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) [Online]. Available at
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoncapitalemployed.asp (Accessed 3 January
2024).
Kieso, D. E., Weygandt, J. J. and Warfield, T. D. (2020). Intermediate accounting, 17th ed.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Linn, B. S., Zepeda, E. D. and Legardeur, J. (2022). CFO perspectives on health care
economics and finance education in medical school. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care
Organization, Provision, and Financing, 59, pp. 1-10.
McSherry, R. and Pearce, P. (2011). Clinical governance: a guide to implementation for
healthcare professionals. John Wiley & Sons.
National Health Service (NHS) England (2013). Evaluation of community services
outsourced by the Department of Health [Online]. Available at:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/tcst/a-z-of-tcst-services/community-services/ (Accessed 3
January 2024).
Peck, K. A., Usadi, B., Mainor, A., Newton, L. A., Riggs, J. S. and Mroz, T. M. (2022).
Comprehensive Primary Care Plus: Patient Experience and Utilization Outcomes for
Medicare Beneficiaries During the First 2 Years. Medical Care, 60(3), pp. 269–276.
Romzek, B., LeRoux, K. and Johnston, J. (2014). Toward high reliability accountability in
large government agencies: NASA and the utilities as models. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 24(4), pp. 961-986.
Ross, A. S., Westerfield, W. R. and Jordan, D. B. (2013). Essentials of corporate finance.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Saltman, R.B. and Bergman, S.E. (2005). Renovating the Commons: Swedish Health Care
Reforms in Perspective. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, Vol. 30, No. 1–2, , pp.
253–275.
Suter, E., Oelke, N., Adair, C. E., Waddell, C., Armitage, G. D. and Huebner, L. (2014).
Healthcare integration: model of patient-focused rather than institution-centred care.
HealthcPapers, 14(3), pp. 26-31.
Whittington, O. R. and Delany, P. (2016). Wiley CPA Examination review, Outlines and
Study Guides, 49th ed. Wiley.
