Pathos Radiology Center Performs X-Rays And Ultrasounds

4 Pagespathos Radiology Center Prc Performs X Rays Ultrasounds Co

Pathos Radiology Center (PRC) specializes in diagnostic medical imaging services such as X-rays, ultrasounds, computed tomography (CT) scans, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recognized as a leading radiology center within the state, PRC maintains this reputation through continual process evaluations and improvements. The organization has historically used a single, facility-wide overhead allocation rate to distribute indirect costs across its services.

However, the Vice President of Finance proposes that adopting more disaggregated cost information could enhance process improvements. She emphasizes the potential for more accurate costing, drawing a parallel to the technologically advanced imaging equipment used by PRC, suggesting that similar innovation in accounting techniques—specifically activity-based costing (ABC)—could bring clarity and precision to cost management decisions.

Compute the budgeted cost per service using direct technician labor costs as the basis

PRC's traditional costing model allocates overhead costs using a single, facility-wide rate. To determine the budgeted cost per service under this model, we need two main data points: the total overhead costs and the total direct technician labor costs across all services. For illustration, assume the following data:

• Total overhead costs: $1,000,000
• Total technician labor costs: $500,000
• Labor hours, or direct technician labor costs, are allocated proportionally among the services according to their respective labor efforts.

First, we calculate the overhead rate:

Overhead rate = Total overhead costs / Total technician labor costs = $1,000,000 / $500,000 = $2.00 per dollar of technician labor.

Next, we determine the direct technician labor costs for each service type based on historical or budgeted data. For example:

• X-rays: $100,000
• Ultrasounds: $150,000
• CT scans: $100,000
• MRIs: $150,000

Now, calculate the overhead allocated to each service:

• X-rays: $100,000 x $2.00 = $200,000
• Ultrasounds: $150,000 x $2.00 = $300,000
• CT scans: $100,000 x $2.00 = $200,000
• MRIs: $150,000 x $2.00 = $300,000

Total costs per service are then determined by adding direct costs (assumed known for each procedure) plus allocated overhead. If direct costs per service are, for example:

• X-ray: $50
• Ultrasound: $70
• CT scan: $200
• MRI: $500

The budgeted cost per service under traditional costing becomes:

• X-ray: $50 + $200,000 / number of X-ray procedures
• Ultrasound: $70 + $300,000 / number of ultrasounds
• CT scan: $200 + $200,000 / number of CT scans
• MRI: $500 + $300,000 / number of MRIs

Without specific procedure volume data, this framework demonstrates how costs are allocated using the traditional model.

Calculate the budgeted cost per service using activity-based costing (ABC)

Activity-based costing refines cost allocation by assigning overhead expenses based on specific activities that drive costs, rather than a single, broad rate. For PRC, this involves identifying key activities, estimating activity cost pools, and assigning costs based on cost drivers. Typical activity cost pools at a radiology center might include:

• Patient registration
• Imaging procedure setup
• Image acquisition
• Image interpretation
• Equipment maintenance

Suppose PRC identifies the following annual overhead costs and drivers:

• Patient registration: $50,000, driven by the number of patient registrations
• Procedure setup: $250,000, driven by the number of procedures
• Image acquisition: $300,000, driven by imaging sessions
• Image interpretation: $250,000, driven by number of images interpreted
• Equipment maintenance: $150,000, driven by number of equipment hours used

Assuming activity volume data is available, such as:

• X-ray procedures: 2,000
• Ultrasound procedures: 1,500
• CT scans: 800
• MRI scans: 700

Each activity’s cost per unit is calculated:

For example, the cost per X-ray procedure for the 'Procedure setup' activity is $250,000 / (total procedures), and similarly for other activities.

By assigning costs based on the specific driver for each service, ABC provides the following approach:

• X-ray: direct costs + sum of activity costs based on activity drivers
• Ultrasound: direct costs + sum of activity costs based on activity drivers
• CT scan: direct costs + sum of activity costs based on activity drivers
• MRI: direct costs + sum of activity costs based on activity drivers

This method results in more precise estimates of the true costs associated with each service, highlighting how resources are consumed differently across procedures.

Evaluation of the differences between traditional and activity-based costing models

The primary difference between traditional and activity-based costing lies in the granularity of cost allocation. Traditional costing applies a single overhead rate uniformly across all services, which can distort the actual resource consumption patterns, especially in diverse service settings like radiology. This can lead to over- or under-costed services, potentially influencing pricing, profitability analysis, and process improvement efforts.

ABC, on the other hand, disaggregates indirect costs, assigning them based on actual activities that drive costs. Consequently, ABC provides a more accurate picture of the true costs of individual services. For PRC, this implies that more profitable services can be identified, inefficiencies can be pinpointed more precisely, and strategic decisions—such as pricing or process redesign—can be better informed.

Empirical studies support the superiority of ABC in healthcare environments, where resource utilization varies significantly among different procedures (Kaplan & Anderson, 2004). For example, investigations reveal that hospitals and clinics using ABC attain more precise cost control and improved operational efficiency (Baldwin & Podor, 2010).

Assessing the value of activity-based costing for management profitability analysis and decision-making

Implementing activity-based costing offers significant advantages for PRC’s management in analyzing profitability and making strategic decisions. With detailed, activity-specific data, management can identify high-cost activities and develop targeted strategies to enhance efficiency, such as streamlining procedures or investing in more effective technologies.

Moreover, ABC facilitates accurate product or service pricing. By understanding the true costs associated with each imaging procedure, PRC can establish more competitive and profitable pricing models, aligning charges with resource consumption while maintaining market competitiveness.

In terms of resource allocation, ABC provides insight into the most costly activities, enabling prioritization of process improvements and resource distribution. For example, if imaging interpretation is identified as an expensive activity with high variability, management might invest in additional radiologists or advanced imaging software to improve throughput and reduce costs.

Furthermore, ABC supports continuous quality improvement (CQI) initiatives. Disaggregated data allows managers to monitor activity-specific performance metrics, identify bottlenecks, and implement targeted quality improvement projects, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and service quality (Kaplan & Cooper, 1998).

The importance and benefits of disaggregation of information for continuous service improvement

Disaggregation of cost and activity data serves as a foundational element in PRC’s pursuit of continuous improvement. By breaking down costs into specific activities, management gains an understanding of precisely where resources are being consumed and where inefficiencies or waste may exist.

This granular insight empowers PRC to implement targeted interventions, such as optimizing workflow in certain procedures or investing in staff training for activities with high error rates. Over time, such focused improvements can lead to reduced costs, enhanced patient care, and increased service quality.

Disaggregated data also supports benchmarking against industry standards or peer institutions. Comparing activity costs enables PRC to identify performance gaps, understand best practices, and adopt innovations that foster operational excellence (Shields & Ward, 2001).

Additionally, detailed activity data facilitates better communication and transparency with stakeholders, including patients, payers, and regulatory agencies. Demonstrating efficiency and cost management at the activity level enhances reputation and supports negotiations for reimbursement rates or collaborations.

In conclusion, adopting activity-based costing and disaggregating operational data are crucial strategies for PRC to sustain its competitive advantage, improve financial performance, and elevate service quality. These approaches enable more precise management decisions, foster continuous improvement, and ultimately help PRC fulfill its commitment to providing top-tier radiology services.

References

• Baldwin, L., & Podor, R. (2010). Activity-based costing in healthcare: A review. Journal of Healthcare Management, 55(2), 107–115.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Anderson, S. R. (2004). Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 131–138.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Cooper, R. (1998). Cost and effect: Using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance. Harvard Business School Press.
• Shields, M. D., & Ward, H. (2001). Implementing activity-based costing in hospitals: Challenges and opportunities. Health Care Management Review, 26(4), 51–63.
• Banker, R. D., Bardhan, I. R., & Chen, T. Y. (2000). The appropriateness of activity-based costing in healthcare. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12, 1–31.
• Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. V. (2012). Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis. Pearson.
• Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (2009). Activity-based costing in health care: A review of the literature. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23(6), 602–617.
• Huang, R., & Pratt, B. (2007). Activity-based costing in hospitals: An empirical investigation. Journal of Healthcare Finance, 33(3), 36–45.
• Reeve, J., & Parker, L. (2004). Healthcare costing systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Cost Management, 18(2), 48–55.
• Anthony, R. N., & Govindarajan, V. (2007). Management Control Systems. McGraw-Hill Education.