• Member Statistics

    • 823,089 Colleagues-to-Date [Sponsored by a generous R&D grant from iMBA, Inc.]
  • David E. Marcinko [Editor-in-Chief]

    As a former Dean and appointed University Professor and Endowed Department Chair, Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA was a NYSE broker and investment banker for a decade who was respected for his unique perspectives, balanced contrarian thinking and measured judgment to influence key decision makers in strategic education, health economics, finance, investing and public policy management.

    Dr. Marcinko is originally from Loyola University MD, Temple University in Philadelphia and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in PA; as well as Oglethorpe University and Emory University in Georgia, the Atlanta Hospital & Medical Center; Kellogg-Keller Graduate School of Business and Management in Chicago, and the Aachen City University Hospital, Koln-Germany. He became one of the most innovative global thought leaders in medical business entrepreneurship today by leveraging and adding value with strategies to grow revenues and EBITDA while reducing non-essential expenditures and improving dated operational in-efficiencies.

    Professor David Marcinko was a board certified surgical fellow, hospital medical staff President, public and population health advocate, and Chief Executive & Education Officer with more than 425 published papers; 5,150 op-ed pieces and over 135+ domestic / international presentations to his credit; including the top ten [10] biggest drug, DME and pharmaceutical companies and financial services firms in the nation. He is also a best-selling Amazon author with 30 published academic text books in four languages [National Institute of Health, Library of Congress and Library of Medicine].

    Dr. David E. Marcinko is past Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious “Journal of Health Care Finance”, and a former Certified Financial Planner® who was named “Health Economist of the Year” in 2010. He is a Federal and State court approved expert witness featured in hundreds of peer reviewed medical, business, economics trade journals and publications [AMA, ADA, APMA, AAOS, Physicians Practice, Investment Advisor, Physician’s Money Digest and MD News] etc.

    Later, Dr. Marcinko was a vital and recruited BOD  member of several innovative companies like Physicians Nexus, First Global Financial Advisors and the Physician Services Group Inc; as well as mentor and coach for Deloitte-Touche and other start-up firms in Silicon Valley, CA.

    As a state licensed life, P&C and health insurance agent; and dual SEC registered investment advisor and representative, Marcinko was Founding Dean of the fiduciary and niche focused CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLANNER® chartered professional designation education program; as well as Chief Editor of the three print format HEALTH DICTIONARY SERIES® and online Wiki Project.

    Dr. David E. Marcinko’s professional memberships included: ASHE, AHIMA, ACHE, ACME, ACPE, MGMA, FMMA, FPA and HIMSS. He was a MSFT Beta tester, Google Scholar, “H” Index favorite and one of LinkedIn’s “Top Cited Voices”.

    Marcinko is “ex-officio” and R&D Scholar-on-Sabbatical for iMBA, Inc. who was recently appointed to the MedBlob® [military encrypted medical data warehouse and health information exchange] Advisory Board.



  • ME-P Information & Content Channels

  • ME-P Archives Silo [2006 – 2020]

  • Ann Miller RN MHA [Managing Editor]

    USNews.com, Reuters.com,
    News Alloy.com,
    and Congress.org

    Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners(TM)

    Product Details

    Product Details

    Product Details


    New "Self-Directed" Study Option SinceJanuary 1st, 2020
  • Most Recent ME-Ps

  • PodiatryPrep.org

    Lower Extremity Trauma
    [Click on Image to Enlarge]

  • ME-P Free Advertising Consultation

    The “Medical Executive-Post” is about connecting doctors, health care executives and modern consulting advisors. It’s about free-enterprise, business, practice, policy, personal financial planning and wealth building capitalism. We have an attitude that’s independent, outspoken, intelligent and so Next-Gen; often edgy, usually controversial. And, our consultants “got fly”, just like U. Read it! Write it! Post it! “Medical Executive-Post”. Call or email us for your FREE advertising and sales consultation TODAY [770.448.0769]

    Product Details

    Product Details

  • Medical & Surgical e-Consent Forms

  • iMBA R&D Services

    Commission a Subject Matter Expert Report [$2500-$9999]January 1st, 2020
    Medical Clinic Valuations * Endowment Fund Management * Health Capital Formation * Investment Policy Statement Analysis * Provider Contracting & Negotiations * Marketplace Competition * Revenue Cycle Enhancements; and more! HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
  • iMBA Inc., OFFICES

    Suite #5901 Wilbanks Drive, Norcross, Georgia, 30092 USA [1.770.448.0769]. Our location is real and we are now virtually enabled to assist new long distance clients and out-of-town colleagues.

  • ME-P Publishing


    If you want the opportunity to work with leading health care industry insiders, innovators and watchers, the “ME-P” may be right for you? We are unbiased and operate at the nexus of theoretical and applied R&D. Collaborate with us and you’ll put your brand in front of a smart & tightly focused demographic; one at the forefront of our emerging healthcare free marketplace of informed and professional “movers and shakers.” Our Ad Rate Card is available upon request [770-448-0769].

  • Reader Comments, Quips, Opinions, News & Updates

  • Start-Up Advice for Businesses, DRs and Entrepreneurs

    ImageProxy “Providing Management, Financial and Business Solutions for Modernity”
  • Up-Trending ME-Ps

  • Capitalism and Free Enterprise Advocacy

    Whether you’re a mature CXO, physician or start-up entrepreneur in need of management, financial, HR or business planning information on free markets and competition, the "Medical Executive-Post” is the online place to meet for Capitalism 2.0 collaboration. Support our online development, and advance our onground research initiatives in free market economics, as we seek to showcase the brightest Next-Gen minds. THE ME-P DISCLAIMER: Posts, comments and opinions do not necessarily represent iMBA, Inc., but become our property after submission. Copyright © 2006 to-date. iMBA, Inc allows colleges, universities, medical and financial professionals and related clinics, hospitals and non-profit healthcare organizations to distribute our proprietary essays, photos, videos, audios and other documents; etc. However, please review copyright and usage information for each individual asset before submission to us, and/or placement on your publication or web site. Attestation references, citations and/or back-links are required. All other assets are property of the individual copyright holder.
  • OIG Fraud Warnings

    Beware of health insurance marketplace scams OIG's Most Wanted Fugitives at oig.hhs.gov


Join Our Mailing List 

Understanding the operational and financial status of your organization or practice

[By Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA CMP™]

Dr. DEMFinancial benchmarking can assist healthcare managers and professional financial advisors in understanding the operational and financial status of their organization or practice.

The general process of financial benchmarking analysis may include three elements: (1) Historical subject benchmarking; (2) Benchmarking to industry norms; and, (3) Financial ratio analysis.


Historical subject benchmarking compares a healthcare organization’s most recent performance with its reported performance in the past in order to: examine performance over time; identify changes in performance within the organization (e.g., extraordinary and non-recurring events); and, to predict future performance.

As a form of internal benchmarking, historical subject benchmarking avoids issues such as: differences in data collection and use of measurement tools; and, benchmarking metrics that often cause problems in comparing two different organizations.

However, it is necessary to common size data in order to account for company differences over time that may skew results.


Benchmarking to industry norms, analogous to Fong and colleagues’ concept of industry benchmarking,   involves comparing internal company-specific data to survey data from other organizations within the same industry. This method of benchmarking provides the basis for comparing the subject entity to similar entities, with the purpose of identifying its relative strengths, weaknesses, and related measures of risk.




Financial Ratio Analysis

The process of benchmarking against industry averages or norms will typically involve the following steps:

  1. Identification and selection of appropriate surveys to use as a benchmark, i.e., to compare with data from the organization of interest. This involves answering the question, “In which survey would this organization most likely be included?”;
  2. If appropriate, re-categorization and adjustment of the organization’s revenue and expense accounts to optimize data compatibility with the selected survey’s structure and definitions (e.g., common sizing); and,
  3. Calculation and articulation of observed differences of organization from the industry averages and norms, expressed either in terms of variance in ratio, dollar unit amounts, or percentages of variation.


Financial ratio analysis typically involves the calculation of ratios that are financial and operational measures representative of the financial status of an enterprise.  These ratios are evaluated in terms of their relative comparison to generally established industry norms, which may be expressed as positive or negative trends for that industry sector. The ratios selected may function as several different measures of operating performance or financial condition of the subject entity.

The Selected Ratios

Common types of financial indicators that are measured by ratio analysis include:

  1. Liquidity. Liquidity ratios measure the ability of an organization to meet cash obligations as they become due, i.e., to support operational goals. Ratios above the industry mean generally indicate that the organization is in an advantageous position to better support immediate goals. The current ratio, which quantifies the relationship between assets and liabilities, is an indicator of an organization’s ability to meet short-term obligations. Managers use this measure to determine how quickly assets are converted into cash.
  2. Activity. Activity ratios, also called efficiency ratios, indicate how efficiently the organization utilizes its resources or assets, including cash, accounts receivable, salaries, inventory, property, plant, and equipment. Lower ratios may indicate an inefficient use of those assets.
  3. Leverage. Leverage ratios, measured as the ratio of long-term debt to net fixed assets, are used to illustrate the proportion of funds, or capital, provided by shareholders (owners) and creditors to aid analysts in assessing the appropriateness of an organization’s current level of debt. When this ratio falls equal to or below the industry norm, the organization is typically not considered to be at significant risk.
  4. Profitability. Indicates the overall net effect of managerial efficiency of the enterprise. To determine the profitability of the enterprise for benchmarking purposes, the analyst should first review and make adjustments to the owner(s) compensation, if appropriate. Adjustments for the market value of the “replacement cost” of the professional services provided by the owner are particularly important in the valuation of professional medical practices for the purpose of arriving at an ”economic level” of profit.

Data Homogeneity

The selection of financial ratios for analysis and comparison to the organization’s performance requires careful attention to the homogeneity of data. Benchmarking of intra-organizational data (i.e., internal benchmarking) typically proves to be less variable across several different measurement periods.

However, the use of data from external facilities for comparison may introduce variation in measurement methodology and procedure. In the latter case, use of a standard chart of accounts for the organization or recasting the organization’s data to a standard format can effectively facilitate an appropriate comparison of the organization’s operating performance and financial status data to survey results.

***Financial Planning MDs 2015

BOOK: Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™


Operational Performance Benchmarking

Operational benchmarking is used to target non-central work or business processes for improvement.  It is conceptually similar to both process and performance benchmarking, but is generally classified by the application of the results, as opposed to what is being compared.  Operational benchmarking studies tend to be smaller in scope than other types of benchmarking, but, like many other types of benchmarking, are limited by the degree to which the definitions and performance measures used by comparing entities differ.  Common sizing is a technique used to reduce the variations in measures caused by differences (e.g., definition issues) between the organizations or processes being compared.

Common Sizing

Common sizing is a technique used to alter financial operating data prior to certain types of benchmarking analysis and may be useful for any type of benchmarking that requires the comparison of entities that differ on some level (e.g., scope of respective benchmarking measurements, definitions, business processes).  This is done by expressing the data for differing entities in relative (i.e., comparable) terms.[vii]


For example, common sizing is often used to compare financial statements of the same company over different periods of time (e.g., historical subject benchmarking), or of several companies of differing sizes (e.g., benchmarking to industry norms). The latter type may be used for benchmarking an organization to another in its industry, to industry averages, or to the best performing agency in its industry.[viii]  Some examples of common size measures utilized in healthcare include:

  1. Percent of revenue or per unit produced, e.g., relative value unit (RVU);
  2. Per provider, e.g., physician;
  3. Per capacity measurement, e.g., per square foot; or,
  4. Other standard units of comparison.


As with any data, differences in how data is collected, stored, and analyzed over time or between different organizations may complicate the use of it at a later time.  Accordingly, appropriate adjustments must be made to account for such differences and provide an accurate and reliable dataset for benchmarking.


Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com



[i]             “Common Size Financial Statements”, by NetMBA.com (2007), http://www.netmba.com/finance/statements/common-size/ (Accessed 8/13/2009), p. 3.

[ii]             See “Benchmarking: A General Reading for Management Practitioners”, by  Sik Wah Fong, Eddie W.L. Cheng, and Danny C.K. Ho, Management Decision, Vol. 36, No. 6 (1998), p. 410.

[iii]            “A Perspective on Benchmarking”, Gregory H. Watson in conversation with the Editor, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1994), p. 6.

[iv]            “A Perspective on Benchmarking”, Gregory H. Watson in conversation with the Editor, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1994), p. 6.

[v]             “A Perspective on Benchmarking”, Gregory H. Watson in conversation with the Editor, Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1994), p. 6.

[vi]            ”Principles of Financial & Managerial Accounting”, Carl S. Warren, Philip E. Fess, 3rd edition, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1992, p. 1169.

[vii]           ”Principles of Financial & Managerial Accounting”, Carl S. Warren, Philip E. Fess, 3rd edition, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1992, p. 1169.

[viii]           ”Principles of Financial & Managerial Accounting”, Carl S. Warren, Philip E. Fess, 3rd edition, South-Western Publishing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 1992, p. 1169.


Product DetailsProduct Details

One Response

  1. Dr. Marcinko,

    Many thanks for this ME-P. I have several of your books and use them frequently in my practice. And, I have seen you lecture and appreciate all you do on behalf of the profession.

    Dr. Charles Bigeloff


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: