An Independent Orthopedic Clinic Is Considering Expansion

An Independent Orthopedic Clinic Is Considering Expanding By Opening A

An independent orthopedic clinic is considering expanding by opening a small surgery center instead of renting space in a local hospital. They ask their financial department (you) for methods of calculating whether or not they should consider the project. They are unfamiliar with the methods and just want an understanding of how they work. Choose the capital investment decision method (Payback, Net Present Value, or Internal Rate of Return) that you think would work the best for this situation. How would you describe the method so that the doctors can understand the way it works?

What outcome would they need to achieve in order to go ahead with the project? Review the posts made by your classmates and reply to at least one that recommended a different method of calculating returns. What are the strengths of the method they chose? What are its weaknesses? After reading their rationale, would you change your approach?

Paper For Above instruction

The decision of whether to invest in a new small surgery center rather than renting space within a hospital requires careful financial analysis to ensure that the project aligns with the clinic’s strategic and financial goals. Among the various capital investment decision methods available—Payback Period, Net Present Value (NPV), and Internal Rate of Return (IRR)—the most suitable method for this scenario is the Net Present Value. This choice is grounded in NPV’s comprehensive ability to evaluate the profitability of investment projects by considering the time value of money, providing a clear dollar measure of value added to the organization.

The Net Present Value (NPV) method involves estimating all future cash inflows and outflows associated with the project and discounting them to their present value using an appropriate discount rate, often reflecting the cost of capital or desired rate of return. The sum of these discounted cash flows, minus the initial investment, results in the NPV. If the NPV is positive, it indicates that the project is expected to generate value above the cost of capital and should, therefore, be considered worth pursuing. Conversely, a negative NPV suggests that the project would diminish value and should be rejected.

To make this concept understandable for the doctors, it can be explained as a “value calculator,” which tells us how much additional worth the project would bring to the clinic in today’s dollars. For example, if the discounted cash flows sum to $1.2 million after subtracting the initial investment of $1 million, the NPV would be $200,000. This positive number means the project is expected to generate $200,000 worth of value, which makes it an attractive opportunity.

In practical terms, the clinic would need to achieve a positive NPV—to exceed zero—by generating sufficient cash flows over time that, when discounted, surpass the initial investment. This outcome reassures the decision-makers that the project’s returns justify the investment, considering the risk and opportunity costs.

While NPV offers a detailed evaluation, some clinicians or decision-makers might prefer simpler methods like Payback Period, which measures how quickly the initial investment is recovered, or IRR, which indicates the rate of return. However, NPV’s advantage is its ability to incorporate the timing and risk of cash flows, providing a more accurate picture of the project’s profitability.

In reviewing classmates’ posts, if a peer recommended using IRR, its strength lies in providing a straightforward rate of return, which can be easily compared to the clinic’s cost of capital. Its weakness, however, is that IRR can sometimes give multiple or misleading results, especially with non-conventional cash flows. If I encountered a compelling rationale favoring IRR—such as ease of understanding or consistent decision criteria—I might consider adopting IRR or using it alongside NPV to confirm the project's viability.

In conclusion, choosing the appropriate investment evaluation method depends on the clinic’s needs. For a comprehensive analysis that accounts for the value created today and aligns with strategic growth decisions, NPV remains the most robust choice. It provides clear guidance: invest only when the expected value exceeds the investment cost, ensuring sustainable and profitable expansion of the orthopedic practice.

References

• Brigham, E. F., & Daves, P. R. (2019). Fundamentals of Financial Management (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jaffe, J. (2018). Corporate Finance (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The Evidence on Corporate Investment Decisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 60(2-3), 187–243.
• Fabozzi, F. J., Modigliani, F., & Jones, F. J. (2010). Foundations of Financial Markets and Institutions. Pearson.
• Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset. Wiley Finance.
• Petersen, M. A., & Rajan, R. G. (2002). Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2533–2570.
• Higgins, R. C. (2012). Analysis for Financial Management (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Cairns, A. J. G. (2012). Financial Management and Policy. Cengage Learning.
• Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2014). Principles of Corporate Finance (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Copeland, T., Weston, J. F., & Shastri, K. (2005). Financial Theory and Corporate Policy (4th ed.). Pearson.