CT Scanner Lease, a Conditional Pledge, and a Payer Refund in the Same Close Week
Riverside Community Hospital is a 210-bed not-for-profit with an FY2025 operating margin of 1.8%, 71 days cash on hand, and $46.0 million of outstanding revenue bonds. The bond indenture requires days cash of at least 65 and debt service coverage of at least 1.30; the hospital is at 1.34. Three items land on the controller's desk in the same week. First, the hospital signed a 60-month noncancelable lease for a CT scanner at $21,500 per month. The scanner's fair value is $1,450,000, its estimated economic life is eight years, and the lease contains no transfer of title, no bargain purchase option, no renewal option, and no residual guarantee. The hospital's incremental borrowing rate is 6.0%. Second, a donor made a written pledge of $1,500,000 for a new cath lab, payable in two installments, with the second installment contingent on the hospital raising $500,000 in matching gifts by June 30. Third, a Medicare Advantage plan notified the hospital that a 2022-2023 contract rate had been applied incorrectly, producing a $740,000 refund payable to the plan.
1. Classify the scanner lease under ASC 842, show the calculation that drives the conclusion, and describe the balance sheet, income statement, and covenant consequences.
Read the worked answer
Run the five finance-lease tests in order. Title does not transfer, there is no bargain purchase option, and the term is 60 of 96 months, or 62.5%, below the 75% threshold. For the 90% test, present value uses the 6.0% incremental borrowing rate: the annuity factor for 60 monthly periods at 0.5% is (1 minus 1.005 to the negative 60) divided by 0.005, or 51.7256, so the present value is 51.7256 times $21,500, or about $1,112,000. That is 76.7% of the $1,450,000 fair value, below 90%. The scanner is not so specialized that it has no alternative use. Conclusion: an operating lease.
That conclusion does not mean off balance sheet. ASC 842 applies to not-for-profits, so the hospital records a right-of-use asset and a lease liability of roughly $1.11 million at commencement, with the ROU asset adjusted for any prepayments or initial direct costs. On the income statement the hospital reports a single straight-line lease cost of $258,000 per year ($21,500 times 12), not separate interest and amortization.
Covenant treatment is the real judgment. Read the indenture's definition of Debt before signing. If it captures lease liabilities generated by ASC 842, reported debt rises to about $47.1 million and any leverage test measured on total debt tightens even though days cash and EBITDAR-based coverage do not move. Many legacy indentures define capitalized lease obligations by the GAAP in effect when the indenture was written, which would exclude an operating lease. Get the trustee's written confirmation, model both readings, and disclose the assumption in the covenant certificate.
2. How should the $1.5 million cath lab pledge be recognized, classified, and later released, and what changes if the project is abandoned?
Read the worked answer
Split the pledge and test each installment for conditionality under ASC 958-605. The first $750,000 installment is an unconditional written promise to give: it is recognized as revenue when the promise is made, not when cash arrives, subject to an allowance for uncollectible pledges and discounting to present value if collection extends beyond one year. Because the donor specified the cath lab, it is revenue with donor restrictions, debited to pledges receivable and credited to contributions with donor restrictions.
The second $750,000 is conditional, because it depends on the hospital meeting the matching-gift threshold. No receivable or revenue is recorded until the matching condition is substantially met; the pledge is disclosed in the notes. When the hospital documents $500,000 in matching gifts by June 30, the second installment becomes unconditional and is recognized at that point.
The restriction is released, and net assets reclassified from with donor restrictions to without donor restrictions, as the cath lab asset is placed in service and qualifying costs are incurred. Releasing at the time of the pledge would overstate unrestricted margin and misstate the board's actual flexibility.
If the project is abandoned, the hospital cannot unilaterally convert the gift to general use. It must seek the donor's written consent to a changed purpose, or obtain court approval for a variance under the state's UPMIFA adoption, or return the funds. Disclose the restriction and any board-designated plan. Also confirm whether the donor retains a reversionary interest, which would change the accounting.
3. The $740,000 Medicare Advantage refund and a separate $310,000 under-accrual caused by a broken spreadsheet formula hit the same fiscal year. How should each be treated?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two items because they have different accounting origins.
The $740,000 payer refund is an error if the hospital had the correct contracted rate in its contract management system and loaded the wrong rate into the billing engine. ASC 250 then requires a prior-period adjustment: restate the affected 2022 and 2023 net patient service revenue, adjust opening net assets, and disclose the nature and amount. It is not a change in estimate, because the correct rate was knowable at the time. If instead the plan changed its reading of an ambiguous contract term that the hospital had applied reasonably, the item is a change in estimate recognized in the current period. Document which fact pattern applies, because the difference is restatement versus a one-line hit to this year's margin.
Either way, recognize the obligation in full when the plan notifies the hospital, since the amount is probable and estimable; do not wait for cash to leave the bank. Record it as a reduction of net patient service revenue with a corresponding liability, and classify it as a current liability unless the repayment schedule extends past a year.
If notification arrived after year-end but before the financials were issued, evaluate it as a recognized subsequent event: the contract error existed at the balance sheet date, so the year-end statements must reflect it. A materiality assessment against operating income and the debt service coverage covenant should drive the disclosure decision, and the controller should test coverage again after the adjustment because a $740,000 revenue reduction pushes directly on the 1.34 covenant.
4. The $310,000 spreadsheet under-accrual is discovered during the same close. What is the correct treatment and why does it differ from the payer refund?
Read the worked answer
Treat the under-accrual according to its cause and size. A formula that omitted a payer class from the contractual allowance calculation is a mathematical mistake, not a change in circumstances, so ASC 250 classifies it as an error. If it is material, restate the prior period; if it is immaterial to the prior statements taken as a whole, correct it in the current period and strengthen the control that failed. Do not blend it into the payer refund entry, because the two items have different disclosure consequences and different audiences.
The practical test is materiality viewed from the user's perspective, not a fixed percentage. Here the relevant users are the bond trustee and the rating agency, and a $310,000 swing against a 1.8% operating margin is large relative to income even though it is small relative to $400 million of revenue. That argues for treating it as material and correcting it as an error.
Then fix the control: contractual allowance calculations should be owned outside the accounting preparer, reconciled to the contract management system, reviewed and signed off monthly, and locked with change control so a formula cannot be edited silently. A second preparer should recalculate a sample of payer classes each quarter. Document the remediation in the internal control letter so the external auditor sees a genuine corrective action rather than a one-time correction.