Who is responsible for business failures?

William O Cleverley

Abstract:Two high-profile business failures should be a wake-up call for hospital leaders. Management and boards cannot rely on unaudited financial statements as the principal indicator of financial health. Boards must ensure diligent analysis of key financial measures. Board members need better education about healthcare finance. Hospitals are not immune to financial collapse.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Trustee workbook 3. Effective governance after Enron and AHERF

James E Orlikoff,Mary K Totten

Abstract:High profile business failures such as Enron and AHERF have raised the public's consciousness about the governing board's crucial role in ensuring sound, ethical business practices. AHERF (the Allegheny Health, Education, and Research Foundation in Philadelphia) was the largest not-for-profit health care bankruptcy in history and has generated many lawsuits against the AHERF boards and individual trustees. The Enron bankruptcy will certainly result in lawsuits against its board and directors and has embarrassed board members profoundly.
Distressed Debt Management & Lessons Learnt Through Case Management: Banking Industry in Kenya

Robert Githua Muriithi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.1.1252

2022-01-27

European Journal of Business and Management Research

Abstract:Deteriorating and troubled assets must be subjected to enhanced risk oversight and monitoring to ensure that appropriate action is taken in a timely manner, allowing a high level of obligor turnaround success and reduced risk of loss for the Lender/Financial Institution/Bank. It’s important for a Bank to harmonize Distressed Debt Management approach, called the Watch List (WL) Framework, and details the requirements to ensure timely adherence to regulatory requirements. The impairment requirements of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS 9) Financial Instruments, effective as of 1 January 2018, are based on an Excepted Credit Loss (ECL) model and replace the IAS 39 Financial Instruments; Recognition and Measurement incurred loss model. IFRS 9, recognizes impairment allowances on either a 12-month or lifetime ECL basis, dependent on whether there was a significant increase in credit risk (SICR) since initial recognition (being either asset origination date or ‘base date’, whichever is most recent). The measurement of ECL reflects both a probability-weighted outcome and the time value of money, using the best available forward-looking information. There should be relevant policies that would require to be read in conjunction with relevant manuals and Accounting Standards. It’s equally important to detail the monitoring objectives for consistent management of wholesale impairment and the provisions necessary to meet regulatory requirements. It is imperative that when dealing with Distressed Debt/Assets, that attention is given to the requirements detailed under Conduct Risk and that client confidentiality is maintained. Mostly, business failure is a result of financial and/or economic distress. A firm in financial distress experiences a shortfall in cash flow needed to meet its debt obligations. Its business model does not necessarily have fundamental problems and its products are often attractive. In contrast, firms in economic distress have unsustainable business models and will not be viable without asset restructuring. In practice, many distressed firms suffer from a combination of the two. Many factors contribute to the high number of business failures. Some common failures include and are not limited to the below. Poor operating performance and high financial leverage. A firm's poor operating performance may result from many factors, such as poorly executed acquisitions, competition, overcapacity, new channels of competition within an industry (e.g., retail), commodity price shocks (e.g., energy), and cyclical industries (e.g., airlines). High financial leverage exacerbates the effect of poor operating performance on the likelihood of corporate failure. Lack of technological innovation. Technological innovation creates negative shocks to businesses that do not innovate. The arrival of a new technology often threatens the survival of firms that possess related, yet less competitive, technologies. There needs for a business to strategically position itself in the market through digital transformation in its processes, product development and operations Liquidity and funding shock. In periods of weak credit supply, some businesses are unable to roll over maturing debt because of illiquidity in credit markets. Relatively high new business formation rates in certain periods. New business formation is usually based on optimism about the future. But new businesses fail with far greater frequency than do more seasoned entities, and the failure rate can be expected to increase in the years immediately following a surge in new business activity. Deregulation of key industries. Deregulation removes the protective cover of a regulated industry (e.g., airlines, financial services, HealthCare, energy) and fosters larger numbers of entering and exiting firms. Competition is far greater in a deregulated environment. Unexpected liabilities. Businesses may fail because off-balance sheet contingent liabilities suddenly become material on-balance sheet liabilities.
What CFOs should know--and do--about corporate responsibility

Michael W Peregrine,James R Schwartz

Abstract:Not-for-profit healthcare organizations are not immune to the scrutiny arising from corporate accounting scandals and legislation. Financial managers will play a critical role in satisfying corporate-responsibility concerns. Financial managers need to understand the public-policy concerns fueling the corporate-responsibility movement and the effects. Financial managers should take steps related to certifying financial statements, establishing audit committees, and ensuring independence of audits, among other actions.
The Importance of Financial Statements in Clinical Practice

Rajiv Chandawarkar,Prakash Nadkarni,Elizabeth Barmash,Allison Capek,Kathleen Casey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005861

2024-07-02

Abstract:Background: Financial statements provide vital information to department chiefs and hospital leadership alike. They reflect departmental performance and guide critical financial decisions for their teams. However, financial statements can be inherently difficult to read and interpret and require time and attention, understandably challenging for busy clinicians. Methods: Here, we aimed to demystify the several types of financial statements, including profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements, and explain what they reveal (and ignore). We describe key performance indicators based on these statements that are routinely used by hospital administrations. This work targets clinicians, team leaders, academic faculty, and administrators alike, recognizing that all of them share the same goals. Results: Mastering the basics of financial statements and using the information within them creates a healthier clinical practice. In turn, it enhances provider satisfaction and enables the team to deliver patient care without financial anxiety. Conclusions: Understanding financial statements helps shared decision-making between clinicians and their administrators-strengthening partnerships that synergistically drive revenue, profitability, and growth.
Board Oversight of Patient Care Quality in Large Nonprofit Health Systems

Lawrence D. Prybil,David R. Bardach,David W. Fardo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860613485407

2013-05-07

American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract:In hospitals and health systems, ensuring that organizational standards for patient care quality are adopted and that processes for monitoring and improving clinical services are in place are among governing boards' most important duties. A recent study examined board oversight of patient care quality in 14 of the country's 15 largest private nonprofit health systems. The findings show that 13 of the 14 boards have standing committees with oversight responsibility for patient quality and safety within their system; 11 of the 14 system boards formally adopt systemwide quality measures and standards; and all 14 regularly receive written reports on systemwide and hospital performance. In recent months, most of these boards had adopted action plans directed at improving their system's performance with respect to patient care quality.

health care sciences & services
Hospital Ownership and Financial Stability: A Matched Case Comparison of a Nonprofit Health System and a Private Equity-Owned Health System

Aimee La France,Rosemary Batt,Eileen Appelbaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-823120210000020007

2021-12-06

Abstract:The long-term financial stability of hospital systems represents a "grand challenge" in health care. New ownership forms, such as private equity (PE), promise to achieve better financial performance than nonprofit or for-profit systems. In this study, we compare two systems with many similarities, but radically different ownership structures, missions, governance, and merger and acquisition (M&A) strategies. Both were nonprofit, religious systems serving low-income communities - Montefiore Health System and Caritas Christi Health Care. Montefiore's M&A strategy was to invest in local hospitals and create an integrated regional system, increasing revenues by adding primary doctors and community hospitals as feeders into the system and achieving efficiencies through effective resource allocation across specialized units. Slow and steady timing of acquisitions allowed for organizational learning and balancing of debt and equity. By 2019, it owned 11 hospitals with 40,000 employees and had strong positive financials and low reliance on debt. By contrast, in 2010, PE firm Cerberus Capital bought out Caritas (renamed Steward Health Care System) and took control of the Board of Directors, who set the system's strategic direction. Cerberus used Steward as a platform for a massive debt-driven acquisition strategy. In 2016, it sold off most of its hospitals' property for $1.25 billion, leaving hospitals saddled with long-term inflated leases; paid itself almost $500 million in dividends; and used the rest for leveraged buyouts of 27 hospitals in 9 states in 3 years. The rapid, scattershot M&A strategy was designed to create a large corporation that could be sold off in five years for financial gain - not for health care integration. Its debt load exploded, and by 2019, its financials were deeply in the red. Its Massachusetts hospitals were the worst financial performers of any system in the state. Cerberus exited Steward in 2020 in a deal that left its physicians, the new owners, holding the debt.
Predicting financial distress in teaching hospitals

Jim Langabeer

Abstract:Despite the prestige and reputation of teaching hospitals, as a group they are in financial distress. If this trend continues, one would expect to see a higher incidence of mergers and acquisitions or divestitures of assets and services, and other strategies designed to combat failing businesses. Nearly one out of every six teaching hospitals sampled was predicted to be near immediate bankruptcy, and the overwhelming majority was not far behind. It will take a significant effort for these hospitals to continue to treat their operations as a clinical and research "business," but they must do just that if they are to survive the continually turbulent market.
The internal processes and behavioral dynamics of hospital boards: an exploration of differences between high- and low-performing hospitals

Nancy M Kane,Jonathan R Clark,Howard L Rivenson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HMR.0000342980.30049.4b

Abstract:Background: Nonprofit hospital boards are under increasing pressure to improve financial, clinical, and charitable and community benefit performance. Most research on board effectiveness focuses on variables measuring board structure and attributes associated with competing ideal models of board roles. However, the results do not provide clear evidence that one role is superior to another and suggest that in practice boards pursue hybrid roles. Board dynamics and processes have received less attention from researchers, but emerging theoretical frameworks highlight them as key to effective corporate governance. Purpose: We explored differences in board processes and behavioral dynamics between financially high- and low-performing hospitals, with the goal of developing a better understanding of the best board practices in nonprofit hospitals. Methodology/approach: A comparative case study approach allowed for in-depth, qualitative assessments of how the internal workings of boards differ between low- and high-performing facilities. Findings: Boards of hospitals with strong financial performance exhibited behavioral dynamics and internal processes that differed in important ways from those of hospitals with poor financial performance. Practice implications: Boards need to actively attend to key processes and foster positive group dynamics in decision making to be more effective in governing hospitals.
What makes great boards great

Jeffrey A Sonnenfeld

Abstract:In the wake of meltdowns at WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron, enormous attention has been focused on the companies' boards. It seems inconceivable that business disasters of such magnitude could happen without gross or even criminal negligence on the part of board members. And yet a close examination of those boards reveals no broad pattern of incompetence or corruption. In fact, they followed most of the accepted standards for board operations: Members showed up for meetings; they had money invested in the company; audit committees, compensation committees, and codes of ethics were in place; the boards weren't too small or too big, nor were they dominated by insiders. In other words, they passed the tests that would normally be applied to determine whether a board of directors was likely to do a good job. And that's precisely what's so scary, according to corporate governance expert Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who suggests that it's time for some new thinking about how corporate boards operate and are evaluated. He proposes thinking not only about how to structure the board's work but also about how to manage it as a social system. Good boards are, very simply, high-functioning work groups. They're distinguished by a climate of respect, trust, and candor among board members and between the board and management. Information is shared openly and on time; emergent political factions are quickly eliminated. Members feel free to challenge one another's assumptions and conclusions, and management encourages lively discussion of strategic issues. Directors feel a responsibility to contribute meaningfully to the board's performance. In addition, good boards assess their own performance, both collectively and individually.
Overseeing oversight: governance of quality and safety by hospital boards in the English NHS

Russell Mannion,Huw Davies,Tim Freeman,Ross Millar,Rowena Jacobs,Panos Kasteridis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819614558471

Abstract:Objectives: To contribute towards an understanding of hospital board composition and to explore board oversight of patient safety and health care quality in the English NHS. Methods: We reviewed the theory related to hospital board governance and undertook two national surveys about board management in NHS acute and specialist hospital trusts in England. The first survey was issued to 150 trusts in 2011/2012 and was completed online via a dedicated web tool. A total 145 replies were received (97% response rate). The second online survey was undertaken in 2012/2013 and targeted individual board members, using a previously validated standard instrument on board members' attitudes and competencies (the Board Self-Assessment Questionnaire). A total of 334 responses were received from 165 executive and 169 non-executive board members, providing at least one response from 95 of the 144 NHS trusts then in existence (66% response rate). Results: Over 90% of the English NHS trust boards had 10-15 members. We found no significant difference in board size between trusts of different types (e.g. Foundation Trusts versus non-Foundation Trusts and Teaching Hospital Trusts versus non-Teaching Hospital Trusts). Clinical representation on boards was limited: around 62% had three or fewer members with clinical backgrounds. For about two-thirds of the trusts (63%), board members with a clinical background comprised less than 30% of the members. Boards were using a wide range and mix of quantitative performance metrics and soft intelligence (e.g. walk-arounds, patient stories) to monitor their organisations with regard to patient safety. The Board Self-Assessment Questionnaire data showed generally high or very high levels of agreement with desirable statements of practice in each of its six dimensions. Aggregate levels of agreement within each dimension ranged from 73% (for the dimension addressing interpersonal issues) to 85% (on the political). Conclusions: English NHS boards largely hold a wide range of attitudes and behaviours that might be expected to benefit patient safety and quality. However, there is significant scope for improvement as regards formal training for board members on quality and safety, routine morbidity reporting at boards and attention to the interpersonal dynamics within boards. Directors with clinical backgrounds remain a minority on most boards despite policies to increase their representation. A better understanding of board composition, actions and attitudes should help refine policy recommendations around boards.
Financial and clinical performance: bridging the gap

S T Fleming,K E Boles

Abstract:The article explores the relationship between the cost and the quality of hospital care by elaborating a conceptual model of hospital performance. The model relates the financial health status of an organization (financial integrity) to the quality of care provided by that organization (clinical integrity) within an environment that is characterized by various forms of risk. The model suggests that both concepts determine the corporate destiny (success, bankruptcy, or merger) of the organization. If this model proves valid empirically, the results could be used as an early warning system to identify hospitals that might experience financial or clinical distress.
Financial performance of hospitals: A critical obligation of corporate governance dimensions

Stephen O Afriyie,Yusheng Kong,Peter Y Lartey,Li Kaodui,Isaac A Bediako,Wenhao Wu,Peter H Kyeremateng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3049

Abstract:Background: This paper aims to investigate the effects of corporate governance mechanisms on the financial performance of hospitals. The statement, "good corporate governance" has been incorporated in the health care sector over the last decade, as an element to improve financial performance. Methods: The researchers relied on both primary and secondary data in the study. For the primary data, the authors used structured and nonstructured questionnaires to obtain data from 125 hospitals. The secondary data used emanated from board meetings, financial statements and relevant reports of the selected hospitals from 2010 to 2017. However, the data was then sorted out to get the required information on Chief Executive Officer (CEO) presence, board relationship, governance dynamics, gender diversity and financial performance. Results: On the basis of empirical evidence provided in this study, the results show that the Independent Directors (INDPDR) variable has a positive effect on Return on Assets and Net Profit Margin and also a high statistically significant value of 0.000 for both performance measures. This is an indication that the variable, INDPDR, is highly capable of improving hospital financial performance. From our studies, Board Size and CEO Duality exhibited a negative relationship with the financial performance measures. Conclusions: Every hospital needs money to maintain a standard health facility and to sustain in operation. However, the inclusion of board of directors improves hospital financial management and enhances performance. Corporate governance mechanisms influence the behavior of health systems in ways that are associated with financial performance.
Have Financial Statements Become Less Informative? Evidence from the Ability of Financial Ratios to Predict Bankruptcy

William H. Beaver,Maureen F. McNichols,Jung-Wu Rhie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-004-6341-9

IF: 4.011

2005-03-01

Review of Accounting Studies

Abstract:Using a hazard model, we examine secular changes in the ability of financial statement data to predict bankruptcy from 1962 to 2002. We identify three trends in financial reporting that could influence predictive ability with respect to bankruptcy: FASB standards, the perceived increase in discretionary financial reporting behavior, and the increase in unrecognized assets and obligations. A parsimonious three-variable model provides significant explanatory power throughout the time period, with only a slight deterioration in predictive power from the first to the second time period. The striking feature of the results is the robustness of the predictive models over a forty-year period.

business, finance
Towards a Model of Stewardship and Accountability in Support of Innovation and "Good" Failure

Keith Denny,Jeremy Veillard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpap.2015.24417

Abstract:From an evolutionary perspective, failures of imagination and missed opportunities to learn from experimentation are as potentially harmful for the health system as failures of practice. The conundrum is encapsulated in the fact that while commentators are steadfast about the need on the part of the stewards of the health system to avoid any waste of public dollars, they are also insistent about the need for innovation. There is tension between these two imperatives that is often unrecognized: the pursuit of efficiency, narrowly defined, can crowd out the goal of innovation by insisting on the elimination of "good waste" (the costs of experimentation) as well as "bad waste" (the costs of inefficiency) (Potts 2009). This tension is mirrored in the two broad drivers of performance reporting in health systems: public accountability and quality improvement. Health organizations, predominantly funded by public funds, are necessarily accountable for the ways in which those funds are used and outcomes achieved. This paper reviews how accountability relationships should be re-examined to create room for "good failure" and to ensure that system accountability does not become a barrier to performance improvement.
Board Quality Scorecards: Measuring Improvement

Christine A. Goeschel,Sean M. Berenholtz,Richard A. Culbertson,Linda Jin,Peter J. Pronovost

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860610389324

2011-04-15

American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract:Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

health care sciences & services
For-Profit Hospitals Out of Business? Financial Sustainability During the COVID-19 Epidemic Emergency Response

Florien Margareth Kruse,Patrick P.T. Jeurissen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.67

2020-05-04

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Abstract:This perspective argues that for-profit hospitals will be heavily affected by epidemic crises, including the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Policy-makers should be aware that for-profit hospitals in particular are likely to face financial distress. The suspension of all non-urgent elective surgery and the relegation of market-based mechanisms that determines the allocation and compensation of care puts the financial state of these hospitals at serious risk. We identify three organisational factors that determine which hospitals might be most affected (ie, care-portfolio, size and whether it is private equity [PE]-owned). In addition, we analyse contextual factors that could explain the impact of financial distress among for-profit hospitals on the wider healthcare system.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Hospital board oversight of quality and safety: a stakeholder analysis exploring the role of trust and intelligence

Ross Millar,Tim Freeman,Russell Mannion

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0771-x

2015-06-16

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:BackgroundHospital boards, those executive members charged with developing appropriate organisational strategies and cultures, have an important role to play in safeguarding the care provided by their organisation. However, recent concerns have been raised over boards’ ability to enact their duty to ensure the quality and safety of care. This paper offers critical reflection on the relationship between hospital board oversight and patient safety. In doing so it highlights new perspectives and suggestions for developing this area of study.MethodsThe article draws on 10 interviews with key informants and policy actors who form part of the ‘issue network’ interested in the promotion of patient safety in the English National Health Service.ResultsThe interviews surfaced a series of narratives regarding hospital board oversight of patient safety. These elaborated on the role of trust and intelligence in highlighting the potential dangers and limitations of approaches to hospital board oversight which have been narrowly focused on a risk-based view of organisational performance. In response, a need to engage with the development of trust based organisational relationships is identified, in which effective board oversight is built on ‘trust’ characterised by styles of leadership and behaviours that are attentive to the needs and concerns of both staff and patients. Effective board oversight also requires the gathering and triangulating of ‘intelligence’ generated from both national and local information sources.ConclusionsWe call for a re-imagination of hospital board oversight in the light of these different perspectives and articulate an emerging research agenda in this area.

health care sciences & services
Did the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker? Examining changes in hospital financial condition

Gloria J Bazzoli,Richard C Lindrooth,Jan P Clement,Mei Zhao,Askar Chukmaitov

Abstract:In the late 1990s and early 2000s, many industry observers expressed the view that there was a growing dichotomy in the hospital industry in which financially weak hospitals were getting weaker and financially strong hospitals were getting stronger. Although existing analysis of cross-sectional financial data concur with this view, our analysis of 1993 to 2000 longitudinal data provides only partial support. We find that about one half of general acute care hospitals classified as financially strong in 1993-95 continued to be strong in 1998-00. More persistence was found for hospitals in weak financial position in 1993-95 with about 60 to 70 percent of them continuing to be weak in 1998-00. Persistently weak hospitals did experience deteriorating financial condition whereas persistently strong hospitals appeared at best to hold their ground financially. Although many Medicare payment policies appear well-targeted to hospitals that would otherwise have financial problems (for example, isolated rural institutions and teaching hospitals), policymakers may need to consider the development of temporary loan or grant programs to assist hospitals that experience transitory financial problems during difficult times.
A spotlight on boards’ response to the new risk environment: How boards are changing the way they think about risk in strategic decision making

Celia Huber,Michael May,Olivia White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.69554/eklv3372

2021-03-01

Abstract:While most financial institutions have significantly enhanced their traditional risk management capabilities over the past decade, these organisations — and their boards of directors — are often less prepared when facing extreme and multi-faceted uncertainty. Preparing for uncertainty, particularly over long time horizons, is much more complex than preparing for particular risk events, as it means taking account of unknown unknowns. To help their organisations navigate extreme uncertainty, boards report that they are focusing on one topic above all: resilience. Leveraging insights from interviews with nearly 1,000 board members, this paper outlines the forms of resilience that should be bolstered and recommends three actions boards should take to build resilience. Specifically, boards should consider and promote operational resilience, organisational resilience, reputational resilience and business-model resilience, in addition to the more familiar financial resilience. To build resilience and prepare for uncertainty, this paper proposes that boards of financial institutions should take three key steps: first, they must understand the main drivers of uncertainty that will impact their operating environment. Secondly, based on these drivers of uncertainty, they should look at the specific financial and operational implications for the company and consider scenario and contingency planning. Thirdly, boards should set clear expectations for management — including setting an appropriate risk appetite, detecting risks and control weaknesses, developing responses, and setting clear metrics — and hold management accountable for strong performance and stewardship of risk.
In Whose Interests Should a Company be Run? Fiduciary Duties of Directors During Corporate Failure in India: Looking to the West for Answers

Gautam Sundaresh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36639/mbelr.8.2.whose

2019-01-01

Abstract:This Comment looks at the debate as it has played out in the legal jurisprudence of the U.S. and the U.K. The analysis of each considers the three financial stages of a corporation’s existence that are specifically addressed in the debate today, i.e.: (i) solvency; (ii) insolvency; and (iii) the zone of insolvency. After setting out the current position, this Comment specifically addresses the various shortcomings and criticisms of the models adopted by each jurisdiction and offers observations on the status quo and the implementation of these models. On this basis, this Comment goes on to propose a model to be adopted by India, the Indian legal jurisprudence in this respect still being in its evolutionary stages and lacking the depth and the level of analysis found in the West.

English Else

Who is responsible for business failures?

Trustee workbook 3. Effective governance after Enron and AHERF

Distressed Debt Management & Lessons Learnt Through Case Management: Banking Industry in Kenya

What CFOs should know--and do--about corporate responsibility

The Importance of Financial Statements in Clinical Practice

Board Oversight of Patient Care Quality in Large Nonprofit Health Systems

Hospital Ownership and Financial Stability: A Matched Case Comparison of a Nonprofit Health System and a Private Equity-Owned Health System

Predicting financial distress in teaching hospitals

The internal processes and behavioral dynamics of hospital boards: an exploration of differences between high- and low-performing hospitals

What makes great boards great

Overseeing oversight: governance of quality and safety by hospital boards in the English NHS

Financial and clinical performance: bridging the gap

Financial performance of hospitals: A critical obligation of corporate governance dimensions

Have Financial Statements Become Less Informative? Evidence from the Ability of Financial Ratios to Predict Bankruptcy

Towards a Model of Stewardship and Accountability in Support of Innovation and "Good" Failure

Board Quality Scorecards: Measuring Improvement

For-Profit Hospitals Out of Business? Financial Sustainability During the COVID-19 Epidemic Emergency Response

Hospital board oversight of quality and safety: a stakeholder analysis exploring the role of trust and intelligence

Did the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker? Examining changes in hospital financial condition

A spotlight on boards’ response to the new risk environment: How boards are changing the way they think about risk in strategic decision making

In Whose Interests Should a Company be Run? Fiduciary Duties of Directors During Corporate Failure in India: Looking to the West for Answers