Assignment Scenario:

You are a director within your healthcare system at one of the local healthcare facilities and serve as an ad hoc ethics committee member. Your healthcare system’s ethics committee is a multidisciplinary team composed of physicians, nurses, social workers, administrators, chaplains, and other employees. The primary ethics team members include your Committee Chair, which is your Chief Nursing Officer, your company’s Legal Counsel, a Local Ethics Advisor, and several ad-hoc members.  A situation has recently occurred at your facility, the ethics committee has requested your assistance to review the information and will require you to present this information at the next meeting.

There are four cases that you may select to complete this assignment, two from an eBook, one for an Arxis Financial, and one from the AMA Journal of Ethics on a case in Long Term Care. Information for the cases has been provided below. You will complete the Ethical Decision-Making Steps Template for this assignment. Supporting external evidence will need to be presented using APA 7th Edition formatting. Your references should be from the last five years, collected from the Week 6 to Week 7 course content, and you may include a maximum of two additional resources outside of the weekly content from your own personal research. Include a coverage page and a reference page with your Ethical Decision-Making Steps Template. Click this hyperlink for the template: Ethical Decision Making Steps Template

Links to the support you in your assignment:

Option 1 and Option 2: eBook Cases

There are two cases presented in Chapter 4, starting on page 54, of the Organizational Behavior and Theory in Healthcare: Leadership Perspectives and Management Applications eBook. Link to UMGC Library eBook: Organizational Behavior and Theory in Healthcare: Leadership Perspectives and Management Applications by Stephen Walston http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e025xna&AN=1838992&site=eds-live&scope=site

Option 3: PDF of a Corporate Fraud Case involving HealthSouth

HealthSouth: A Case Study in Corporate Fraud by Chris Hamilton from Arxis Financial, Inc. Please click this hyperlink to access the ethics case PDF : Option 3 PDF of HealthSouth Ethics Case Study

Option 4: PDF of Ethics Case – Ethics and Intimate Sexual Activity in Long-Term Care

Please click the hyperlink to access the ethics case PDF: AMA Journal of Ethics Case Study in Long Term Care

ACHE Ethics Toolkit: Click the hyperlink to access the ACHE Ethics Toolkit Website ACHE Ethics Toolkit

ACHE Making Ethical Decisions (PDF) An article from Healthcare Executive magazine that outlines the multi-step process for ethical decision makingClick the hyperlink to access the ACHE Making Ethical Decisions (PDF): ACHE Ethical Decision Making Steps

Ethical Decision-Making Steps:

Healthcare Administrator’s Presentation to the Ethics Committee


Administrator’s Instructions
: Complete this form, the Ethical Decision-Making Steps as defined by the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE), based on your selected ethical case study you selected as defined within the assignment prompt. You will be presenting this information during your next ethics committee meeting. Provide a response to each step below, ensuring that sufficient details are provided with supporting evidence. (Your supporting external evidence will need to be presented in APA format using in-text citations and remember to include a separate APA formatted Reference Page that your executive leaders may refer to in order to obtain additional information on your responses. Your references should be from the last five years, collected from the Week 3 to Week 5 course content, and you may include a maximum of two additional resources outside of the weekly content from your own personal research.)

Place an X in front of the Case that you have decided to present to your ethics committee:

_____ Option 1 from the eBook – HealthT Seeks Healthier Employees

_____ Option 2 from the eBook – CEO Misuse of Company Funds?

_____ Option 3 PDF – HealthSouth: A Case Study in Corporate Fraud

_____ Option 4 PDF – Ethics and Intimate Sexual Activity in Long-Term Care


Complete the following ethical decision-making steps below for your selected case:
(Note: Appropriately adjust the spacing below for each step to provide your information based on the case option that you selected.)

Step One: Recognize the Background (The Circumstances Leading to the Ethics Conflict.)

Step Two: Identify the Specific Ethical Question(s) that Need Clarification.

Step Three: Consider the Related Ethical Principles and/or Organizational Values

Step Four: Determine the Options for Response(s).

Step Five: Recommend a Response(s).

Step Six: Anticipate the Ethical Conflict.

2468 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063
Ph: 805.306.7890 Fx: 805.306.7891 www.arxisfinancial.com

HealthSouth: A Case Study in Corporate Fraud
By: Chris Hamilton, CPA, CFE, CVA

Arxis Financial, Inc.

Embezzlement, misappropriation, cheating or stealing – whatever name you give it, corporate fraud is
rampant. There are television and newspaper stories nearly every day about all kinds of corporate
schemes, scams and swindles. How is corporate fraud accomplished and who does it? Behind every
fraud is a person — or a group of people — who has taken what is not theirs to take. Some of those people
intended to steal — they just never thought they would get caught. Others were pulled into the original
crime or some aspect of the cover-up and before they knew it they were labeled a co-conspirator. This
article will examine the people behind the much publicized fraud scheme at HealthSouth. Some did not
set out to commit white-collar crime but found themselves as defendants in criminal trials for fraud. Where
did those people go wrong?

In the HealthSouth case, we observe real life examples of people who were “just doing their job” but at
some point crossed the line from law-abiding citizens to law-breaking villains. Seemingly small
compromises in ethics and morality led to larger compromise and, ultimately, a full-scale commitment to
fraud. Finally, we will conclude with a discussion on whether “the law” is ultimately the proper criteria for
evaluating the morality of our behavior or the ethics of our thinking.

Nobody sets out in their career to end up in prison cleaning toilets and on the front page of the Wall Street
Journal after they are arrested for fraud. At some point, though, many end up that way. How do they
transition from new employee to a white collar criminal?

The Stage is Set
In the 1990’s there was a convergence in the United States of several forces creating economic growth
and wealth at a pace never seen before. Exploding technological advances, ample supplies of capital,
and a loosening of regulations created the “perfect storm” that allowed for lax oversight of financial
reporting. As could have been predicted, that loose oversight gave room for fraudulent transactions and
reporting.

Investors and lenders became less concerned with profitability and seemingly more focused on revenue.
If revenue was growing, investors seemed satisfied to provide the capital needed to fuel that growth. The
market of investors also became accustomed to, and even demanded, “proforma” financial statements.
These reports presented financial information “as if” certain factors would have happened rather than on
actual results. The focus on sales volume and good economic news created a compelling incentive for
companies to adopt aggressive accounting policies, as it related to the recognition of income. From that
p

This table lists criteria and criteria group names in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method. You can give feedback on each criterion by tabbing to the add feedback buttons in the table.Criteria

90-100%

80-89%

70-79%

0-69%

Criterion Score

Analysis of Issue 20%

20 points

The work demonstrates clear analysis of the subject, including its:

(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.

17.8 points

The work demonstrates significant analysis and understanding of the subject, including its:

(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.

15.8 points

The work demonstrates understanding of the subject, including its:

(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.

5 points

The work demonstrates little or no understanding of the subject, including its:

(1) history and evolution, (2) internal and external contributing factors, (3) participants and stakeholders, and (4) significance.

Score of Analysis of Issue 20%,/ 20

Clarity of Presentation (Flow and Logic of the argument, References) 25%

25 points

The work demonstrates sound and compelling logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.

The document is well organized, straightforward, easy to understand, and leads the reader to an informed conclusion.

22.25 points

The work demonstrates adequate logic in incorporating relevant research in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency (i.e. more than one source), and (3) currency.

The document is generally well organized, straightforward and somewhat easy to understand, but includes extraneous information or questionable findings as it leads the reader to a conclusion.

19.75 points

The work demonstrates questionable logic, relies on literature that is dated or somewhat irrelevant in terms of (1) applicability, (2) sufficiency, or (3) currency.

The document is somewhat disjointed, not easy to understand, and the conclusion is difficult to discern.

0 points

The work employs faulty logic, relying on research that is (1) not applicable, (2) too limited to support the analysis, or (3) not current.

The document is poorly organized, difficult to understand, or fails to reach a cogent conclusion.

Score of Clarity of Presentation (Flow and Logic of the argument, References) 25%,/ 25

Comprehensiveness of Analysis 35%

35 points

The work demon