In July 2 Issue
Board members were told Tuesday nigh that the hospital had only its second month this fiscal year with an operating loss in May.
The $15,877 negative was overshadowed by a 19,504 net figure for the month and the 1,385,643 year to date profit.
Board Chairman Jeff Hubbard noted that was even more impressive when compared to the previous year's figures.
CFO Ken Kimsal said the May figures, like November's operating loss were a result of low patient numbers.
"We were 8 percent below budget for patient revenue for May," Kimsal said. "But we are still 2 percent over budget for the year."
He also presented the board with the capital and fiscal budgets for the coming year. There was $326,000 for replacement of failing equipment.
"The EEG has been down for a couple of months," Kimsal mentioned as an example of equipment scheduled for replacement.
Hubbard noted that that means the hospital is missing the revenue those tests could generate there instead of having to sent patients to other facilities for that testing.
The fiscal budget shows an operating income plan of $576,801 and a net profit of $1,402,172 in the coming year.
That figure is slightly more than this year's projected finish, and includes about a 5 percent increase in fees and a maximum 3 percent merit based pay increase for employees.
CEO George Walz reported that there is also an increase in some positions where the hospital was lagging behind comparable hospitals in a Kentucky survey.
Walz also said that in the first quarter survey of Alliant Hospitals the Russell County Hospital was number one in speed of dealing with emergency room patients, and had the fewest discrepancies in reading radiological studies in the emergency room.
He added that there were areas where the hospital had room for improvement, noting that the length of stay was longer than it should be in the areas of coronary care and pneumonia treatment.
The hospital's planned feasibility study, which would be necessary for securing a federal grant or loan to expand the hospital, hit a snag when the cost was reported at $90,000, over twice what had been projected.
It was explained that the US Department of Agriculture rules for their loan program had changed and the new reports were more intensive and the accounting firm reporting it had to certify the results and projections in the report.
There are other bids yet to come in and other methods of dealing with the situation, the board was told, and the matter would be on the table at the July board meeting.