The Capital Budget and the Aging MRI
A physician-owned multi-specialty group projects $2.1M in free cash flow next year. It faces three competing requests: (1) replace a 12-year-old MRI whose downtime has risen to 9% and which generates $1.8M in annual imaging revenue; (2) fund a new electronic health record module at $600,000 that would improve documentation and reduce denials; (3) distribute $900,000 to shareholders. The MRI replacement costs $1.6M and would be financed over five years at 6%. The group's largest payer is shifting to a risk-based contract next year, and the group's imaging utilization is 20% above regional peers. The board wants to maximize distributions and argues the MRI 'still works most of the time.' The CFO notes the group has no formal capital prioritization policy and decisions have historically been made by the largest shareholder.
1. How should the group evaluate the three requests? What framework applies, and what does the risk-based contract change?
Read the worked answer
The group needs a capital prioritization framework rather than ad hoc decisions. A workable one scores each request on: strategic fit, financial return, risk mitigation, regulatory/quality necessity, and reversibility.
Applying it:
- MRI replacement - the 9% downtime is a real revenue and quality risk, but the risk-based contract reframes the math. Under fee-for-service, more imaging volume means more revenue. Under risk, excess imaging is a cost, not a revenue stream. The group is already 20% above peers, so replacing the MRI to preserve volume may be investing in a margin that is about to shrink. The right question is not 'can we afford the MRI' but 'what imaging capacity do we need under the new contract?' A refurbished unit or a service contract extension may bridge the transition.
- EHR module - $600,000 for documentation and denial reduction has a clearer strategic fit: it supports risk-contract performance (documentation drives risk-adjustment and quality metrics) and reduces leakage. Likely higher priority than a full MRI replacement in the near term.
- Distributions - $900,000 to shareholders while deferring infrastructure is a governance problem, not just a finance one. Distributing cash that funds a known operational risk is a decision the board should make explicitly and document.
The risk-based contract is the pivot: it changes the value of utilization, so the group should not commit $1.6M to preserve FFS imaging volume without modeling the post-transition economics.
2. What governance concerns does the CFO's observation raise, and what should the board do?
Read the worked answer
The CFO's note that 'decisions have historically been made by the largest shareholder' and that there is no formal capital policy is a governance red flag. Risks:
- Fiduciary and conflict issues. Physician-owners deciding capital allocation that affects their own distributions have an inherent conflict. Without a documented process, decisions are vulnerable to challenge by minority shareholders and can expose directors to breach-of-duty claims.
- Documentation gap. No policy means no record of why a decision was made - bad for lenders, payers, and any future transaction or dispute.
- Strategic drift. Ad hoc capital decisions tend to favor near-term distributions over infrastructure, which is exactly the pattern here.
Board actions:
- Adopt a written capital allocation policy with thresholds, scoring criteria, and required documentation.
- Separate the decision from the beneficiaries. Have a finance/audit committee (with independent or non-owner input where possible) review and recommend; recuse conflicted shareholders from votes on distributions.
- Model the risk-contract scenario before committing to the MRI; present both FFS and risk-case returns.
- Document the distribution decision and its rationale, including any deferred capital needs.
- Set a reserve target so distributions don't starve operations.
The board's 'it still works most of the time' framing is a symptom: without a policy, the loudest shareholder's risk tolerance becomes the organization's.