Just numbers – Updated

So every year, management submits a budget and every year the Board dutifully approves it and every year management misses the numbers by a mile.  Rinse, repeat except this year there will be at least one dissenting vote to this charade.  (Even 2009/2010 was a miss of, I think of about 1 million dollars from budget, only mitigated by the IGT funds that became available at the last minute from an agency  where, I believe,  at least one Board member had inside connections to someone in a leadership position.)

Updated.  John Knox White asked me for the updated numbers and these are them as near as I can tell from the archive
Total for the last 6 years:

FY      Budget       Actual       Miss
2006      0?            -60            60
2007      0?           -3900       3900
2008      +20         -2400       2400
2009     +100         +250        -150
2010     +360         -350          700
2011     +490         -1500       2000

Minimum of a 9 million dollar miss cumulative over the last 6 years. 
FY 2006:  Did not locate budget in archives although anyone can request it from the District.  Since the budget must be balanced I used 0 profit as the minimum budget.
FY 2007:  Same as for 2006.  I used 0 profit as the minimum budget.
FY 2009:  I believe the audited numbers may have shown a better result than shown here, but it was the single year of actually meeting or exceeding the budget over the last 6 years.
FY2010:  The 2.165 million of IGT funds was a game changer and unbudgeted.  Wilma Chan led the agency that gave the money to the Hospital and I don’t have any idea if that helped, but it certainly could not have hurt.

FY2011:  Backed out 1.4 million in IGT funds that failed to materialize.  Also 200 thousand of positive changes to reimbursement balanced against 640k of negative changes.  Also, backed out the write-off of the Kaiser liability from 2006.

2011/2012 projects a profit of 540k but a lot of that hope is built on cutting “Salaries and Agency” expense by 2.4 million dollars.  The associated FTE decrease associated with this is 22.7 so doing the rudimentary math that works out to about 106k per FTE.  Now the 106k is not fully loaded cost, but just the direct salary expense.  The other expenses of FTEs (to total the fully loaded cost – things like benefits, space, etc) are captured in other line items on the budget.  The only specific category of FTE’s that this budget calls out is CNA’s.  In addition, some savings will be realized by closure of the lab draw station at “Alameda Town Center” (sic).  I am almost certain that this does not average out to personnel receiving 106k per FTE.   Never mind if the Hospital can hold the line at this level of staffing, a decrease of over 5% from 2011 (while forecasting overall volume increases).  I need to understand how that 2.4 million number was derived because it does not work out with my assumptions so I must be mistaken in my assumptions.

About egorelick

Gadfly. Former City of Alameda Healthcare District Board member.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s