ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
MOD009382 Finance and Governance in Health and Social Care
|
Assessment |
Coursework (Report) |
|
Assessment Code |
011 |
|
Academic Year |
2025/2026 |
|
Trimester |
1 |
|
Module Title |
Finance and Governance in Health and Social Care |
|
Module Code |
MOD009382 |
|
Level |
7 |
|
Module Leader |
|
|
Weighting |
60% |
|
Word Limit |
3000 This excludes the bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.83 of the Academic Regulations. |
|
Assessed Learning Outcomes |
LO2: Analyse and evaluate financial statements, budgets, and forecasts, and apply financial management principles to healthcare organisations to make informed and ethical financial decisions. LO4: Analyse financial and governance challenges in healthcare organisations and formulate solutions for overcoming these challenges. |
|
Submission Deadline: |
Please refer to the deadline on the VLE |
WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
- This assignment must be completed individually.
- All courses of study must use the Harvard referencing system for written assessments, apart from LLB/LLM courses where OSCOLA should be applied. Please see the below link for guidance: https://library.aru.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm
- Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
- Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
- Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
- Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
- You must number all pages.
- In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your mark will receive a 10% penalty. If you submit your work up to TWO working days after the published submission deadline – it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 50%.
- Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.
- Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. Students will need to provide evidence to support their extension request. See rules 6.64-6.73.
SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
- Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of exceptional circumstances in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team – DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. Students will need to provide evidence to support their EC claim. See rules 6.112 – 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
ASSIGNMENT QUESTION:
Please read the following scenario:
You have been appointed as a financial analyst to a London-based NHS Trust Hospital. You have been told that the hospital plans to open a dental clinic in the South Wing with a budget of £6 million. Senior-level staff were only able to put up a preliminary budget and cost plan. You have been asked to consolidate and analyse the plan, perform financial forecasting and come up with innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial performance. Your report should include an appraisal of the proposed project; effective ways of obtaining funding for the project and a recommendation to the hospital.
Background
According to a report commissioned by the Association of Dental Groups (2022), over the last 30 years, NHS dental services and dental workforce planning in England have been neglected. The situation has worsened significantly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and Brexit. There were an estimated 8 million people on the NHS dentist waiting list by 2020. Due to the difficulty of getting access to an NHS dentist, the poorest patients often end up paying the price in large parts of the country. According to the most recent data, only a third of the population has visited an NHS dentist in the previous two years. England now has the fewest NHS dentists in ten years. Recruitment is now practically impossible in rural and coastal towns, especially in the East of England and funding has remained static for the previous ten years (a real terms drop after inflation). The report suggests that the only realistic solution to the crisis is overseas recruitment.
Regular dental check-ups are an essential first line of defence against type 2 diabetes and mouth cancer. Dentists frequently identify the early symptoms of these diseases and regularly provide vital referrals for specialist care for patients. The report further states that ‘the early detection of mouth cancer boosts a patient’s chance of survival from 50 per cent to 90 per cent.’
In order to raise revenues and help the country with the backlog, a London-based NHS Trust Hospital is considering opening a dental clinic in the South Wing to treat both NHS and private patients. Priority will be given to disabled patients and children. The NHS Trust will cover the initial costs out of pocket, but in the succeeding five years will receive £6 million in total from the Department of Health and Social Care that will be distributed equally over the period.
The NHS Trust will employ more dental therapists who require a shorter training period than dentists to help with the backlog. They will perform procedures such as scaling and polishing, dental X-rays and tooth extraction (Band 1).
The hospital plans to initiate the following setup: A 1000-square feet medical building will be rented for a five-year term at £22,000 per year. The clinic will incur an initial cost of £0.6 million for the purchase of dental equipment and the setup to deliver high-quality care. The clinic will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no closures.
Data file
Initial cost:
Infrastructure and equipment costs: £0.6 mln
Ongoing operational costs
Insurance: £1,100 per year
Utilities: £32,000 per year
Medical supply: £65,000 per year
Other running costs: £8,000 per year
Overtime costs: £26,000 per year.
Treatment Costs & Revenues
Band 1: £23.80 per patient (30 patients a day)
Band 2: £65.20 per patient (21 patients a day)
Band 3: £282.80 per patient (5 patients a day)
Hygiene cleaning: £80 per patient (20 patients a day)
Dental accessories sales: £12,000 per year
Staff Costs:
Dentist: £65,000 per year (x1)
Dental Therapists: £47,000 per year (x3)
Dental Hygienists: £37,000 per year (x2)
Administrators: £24,000 per year (x2)
The required rate of return: 3.5%
Inflation: 0%
Assignment Task
You are required to prepare a report, using the information provided above, covering the following areas:
a) Create a spreadsheet model and analyse the projected financial performance of the proposal over five years. Critically evaluate the proposal using investment appraisal techniques. (30 marks)
b) Revise the proposal in (a) and provide innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. Identify the type of budgeting that would be suitable for the proposal and explain why. (20 marks)
c) Discuss traditional sources of financing and explain how they differ from NHS funding. (20 marks)
d) Identify and discuss the UK Government’s six-point action plan for dentistry by referring to the report published by the Association of Dental Groups (2022). Critically evaluate the potential impact of the action plan on patient care. (20 marks)
e) Report structure and presentation. (10 marks)
ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE
In writing your report you are expected to use theoretical tools that you have studied during the course and from your research and make reference to credible evidence. The format for a report is available on the VLE.
At least 8 independently researched academic sources from the ARU library are expected.
ASSIGNMENT CORE READING
Atrill, P. & McLaney, E. (2022). Accounting and Finance for Non-Specialists, 12th ed. Pearson.
Bandy, Gary (2024). Financial Management and Accounting in the Public Sector, 3rd edition, Routledge, London. Available through Kortext and/or ARU Library.
Brigham, E.F. and Houston, J.F., (2021). Fundamentals of financial management: Concise. Cengage Learning.
Bragg, S. M. (2017). Budgeting: A Comprehensive Guide, 4th ed. Accounting Tools Incorporated.
Dyson, J.R. and Franklin, E. (2020) Accounting for Non-Accounting Students, 10th edition, Pearson
Frost, S. M. (2024). Financial Accounting and Reporting for Non-Accounting Students (1st ed.). Kogan Page.
HFMA Introductory Guide to NHS Finance (2023). HFMA
Kimmel, P. D., Weygandt, J. J. & Mitchell, J. E. (2021). Financial Accounting: Tools for Business Decision Making, 10th ed. Wiley.
Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced.
Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.
MARKING CRITERIA
Assignment submissions will be marked with reference to the below criteria, as summarised in Table 1, based on ARU Level 7 generic grading criteria, Table 2.
Table 1: Assignment grading criteria and marking rubric.
|
Section |
Indicative grading |
Marks available |
|
(1) Spreadsheet model forecasting the impact of the proposal over the five years. |
Category: A qualifying evaluation Grade Range: 0-3 marks Description: The student`s work may be incomplete, incorrect or lacking understanding in key areas. The spreadsheet model, investment appraisal techniques and their application may be missing or incorrect. The explanations may be vague or poorly organised and the conclusions may be missing or unsupported. Neither the concepts nor the requirements are understood sufficiently. The student`s work requires significant improvement. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-7 marks Description: The student demonstrates some understanding of the concepts and requirements. The spreadsheet model may be partially complete and contain some errors. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques may be presented in a flawed or superficial way. The application of the techniques to the proposal may be partially correct and the conclusions are somewhat supported. The student`s work requires further development. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 8-11 marks Description: The student shows a competent understanding of the subject matter. The spreadsheet model may mostly be complete and accurate but without rigorous critical insight and with minor errors. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are clear and concise, covering their pros and cons at the minimum expected standard. The application of the techniques to the proposal is correct/partially correct and the conclusions are supported with some analysis. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 12-15 marks Description: The spreadsheet model may be comprehensive, accurate and well-organised. The descriptions of the investment appraisal techniques are thorough, offering a solid justification for them that is relatively critical as well as a complete comprehension of both their benefits and drawbacks. The application of the techniques to the proposal is mostly correct and insightful and the conclusions are well-supported with analysis. Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 16-19 marks Description: The spreadsheet model is sophisticated, accurate and well-designed. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive, providing a deep understanding of their pros and cons. The application of the techniques to the proposal is accurate and demonstrates critical thinking and the conclusions are well-supported with in- depth analysis. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 20-22 marks Description: The student`s work surpasses expectations, demonstrating a deeper understanding and analysis of the assignment brief. The spreadsheet model is advanced, accurate and highly effective in representing the cash flows. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive and insightful, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their pros and cons. The application of the techniques to the proposal is highly accurate and demonstrates advanced critical thinking and the conclusions are well- supported with comprehensive analysis. |
30 |
|
|
Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 23-25 marks Description: The spreadsheet model is sophisticated, accurate and highly effective in representing the cash flows. The explanations of the investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive, insightful and showcase a deep understanding of their pros and cons. Refer to approaches of cost of capital calculations. Further critique/challenge the capital elements of the NPV. It makes links to discount rate, IRR and NPV. The application of the techniques to the proposal is precise and demonstrates advanced critical thinking and the conclusions are well-supported with comprehensive and sophisticated analysis. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation. |
|
|
(2) Revision of the proposal and suggestions to improve it identification of the type of budget (25 marks) |
Category: A qualifying evaluation Grade Range: 0-3 marks Description: The student`s work may be insufficient in revising the proposal and providing innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. The changes made to the original proposal may be missing or inadequate and the student may fail to demonstrate an understanding of how these changes improve the proposal. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques may be missing/incorrect. The discussion on different types of budgeting may be lacking/incomplete. The student`s work requires substantial improvement and a better grasp of the concepts. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-7 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal may be limited or lack depth. The student shows some understanding of how these changes improve the proposal but the explanations may be incomplete or lacking critical insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques may contain errors/omissions. The discussion on different types of budgeting may be presented in a flawed or superficial manner. The student`s work requires further development and improvement. |
20 |
|
|
Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 8-11 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal are appropriate and demonstrate a sound understanding of the requirements. The student presents some explanation of how these changes improve the proposal although further critical insight may be required. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are mostly accurate with minor errors or omissions. The discussion on different types of budgeting is clear and covers their pros and cons adequately. The student`s work demonstrates a developing proficiency in the subject matter. |
|
|
|
Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 12-15 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal are appropriate and exhibit a solid comprehension of the requirements. The student provides clear explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showing some critical insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are accurate and supported by relevant analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is comprehensive, offering a thorough understanding of their pros and cons. |
|
|
|
Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 16-19 marks Description: The student`s work displays excellent understanding and analysis of revising the proposal and providing innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. The changes made to the original proposal are innovative, well-justified and demonstrate a deep understanding of the requirements. The student provides detailed explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showcasing critical thinking and insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are comprehensive and supported by thorough analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is insightful, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their pros and cons. |
|
|
|
Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 20-22 marks Description: The student`s work surpasses expectations by providing innovative ways to reduce expenses and improve financial budgeting. The changes made to the original proposal are highly effective and exhibit outstanding comprehension of the requirements. The student provides exceptional explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showcasing advanced critical thinking and insight. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are precise and supported by comprehensive analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is comprehensive and demonstrates a deep understanding of their pros and cons. Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 23-25 marks Description: The changes made to the original proposal are sophisticated and highly effective, showcasing exceptional comprehension of the requirements. The student provides comprehensive explanations of how these changes improve the proposal, showcasing advanced critical thinking, insight and a meticulous command of relevant terminology, theory and its practical implications. The identification and application of investment appraisal techniques are precise and supported by comprehensive and sophisticated analysis. The discussion on different types of budgeting is thorough and showcases exceptional understanding of their pros and cons. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Discuss traditional sources of financing and explain how they differ from NHS funding by making links with corporate governance. |
Category: A qualifying evaluation Grade Range: 0-3 marks Description: The student`s work may lack understanding or clarity in identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England may be incomplete or inaccurate. The comparison between corporate and public funding options may be missing or superficial. The student`s critical thinking skills and analysis may be insufficient. There is a need for substantial improvement in demonstrating a deep understanding. Category: An adequate evaluation Grade Range: 4-7 marks Description: The student demonstrates a some understanding of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is presented but it may lack depth or contain inaccuracies. The comparison between corporate and public funding options may be limited or lacking critical insight. The student`s critical thinking skills and analysis require further development to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the topic. Category: A sound evaluation Grade Range: 8-11 marks Description: The student shows an understanding of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons at the minimum expected level. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is clear and provides a solid overview. The comparison between corporate and public funding options is presented with some critical insight, highlighting certain similarities and differences. The student`s work demonstrates a developing ability to critically analyse the topic. Category: A good evaluation Grade Range: 12-15 marks Description: The student`s work showcases perceptive critical thinking skills and a solid grasp of the subject matter. The student demonstrates a deeper understanding of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is comprehensive, providing a detailed understanding of the funding mechanisms. The comparison between corporate funding options and public funding options is insightful, discussing both similarities and differences in a clear and logical manner. Category: An excellent evaluation Grade Range: 16-19 marks Description: The student`s work displays excellent understanding and analysis of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is comprehensive and provides a deep understanding of the funding mechanisms, demonstrating an astute comprehension of the topic. The comparison between corporate and public funding options is nuanced and exhibits sophisticated critical thinking, discussing both similarities and differences with clarity. Category: An outstanding evaluation Grade Range: 20-22 marks Description: The student`s work surpasses expectations, demonstrating exceptional understanding and analysis of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is detailed and exhibits an understanding of the funding mechanisms, highlighting key considerations. The comparison between corporate funding options and public funding options is highly insightful and showcases exceptional critical thinking, providing a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of both similarities and differences. Category: An exceptional evaluation Grade Range: 23-25 marks Description: The student`s work is exceptional, demonstrating an understanding and analysis of identifying traditional techniques of raising capital in the corporate world and their pros and cons. The explanation of how the NHS is funded in England is thorough and exhibits a masterful understanding of the funding mechanisms, encompassing key details and complexities. The comparison between corporate funding options and public funding options is exceptional, showcasing a deep understanding and astute critical thinking, with a comprehensive examination of both similarities and differences. Answers at this level will generally display a scrupulously exact command of relevant terminology and theory and a powerfully synthetic approach to argumentation. |