
(Please Summerize the work down below, thank you)

Political	Economic
Growing political influences on healthcare advances	Cost of living increases
Global government influence on healthcare cost	Cost of insurance prices
Government control of Medicaid, Medicare funding	Rise of forecasted interest rates
Social/Cultural	Technical or Technology
Increase average age of population	Demand on new medical treatments
Patient expectations increase	Customize treatments
Demographics are in constant change	More advance service facilities
Environmental	Legal
Growing need for green business	Constant change of government drug Regulations
Environmental agenda and community awareness	Consumer laws
	Health and safety regulations



Porters 5 forces of business model

Competitive Rivalry
Growth opportunity for healthcare companies are expected to growing the next few years
Increase in new revolutionary drugs both in and outside of the US

Threat if New Entrants
Strict government regulations
Difficult to keep up due to constant change
Huge startup cost

Substitute Products
Threat of other substituting product and service at lower cost



Bargaining Power of Customers
Generic drugs offered at large discount to consumer
Larger less customized healthcare facility with lower housing costs
Several facilities offering similar services.

Bargaining power of supplier
Medical suppliers have a large pricing power
Bargaining power of physicians and nurses is huge because of large hospital benefits

Swot Analysis

Strengths

Highly trained and capable employees

Market experience

Strong leadership

High level of organizational efficiency

Excellent facilities

Strong commitment to bettering the community

Weaknesses

Increased cost of healthcare could lower our clientele

Limited staff resources

Limited cash flow to hire and train new employees

Lack of resources

Opportunities

Fast growing technology opens new doors for using state of the art equipment to better serve the patients.

Nursing and residential care is one of the fastest growing industries

Aging population

Threats

Uncertainty in political and economic climate causes hesitation for receiving new patients.

Funding constraints

Highly competitive market

Product or Service Analysis

Our services will be used by patients who cannot afford experimental treatments and patients who have been abandoned by the system because hospitals can no longer provide medical assistance. At our facility, we will be able to work with the families and provide them with different payments options, such as low monthly payment plans. Our main goal is to be able to treat the patient at a very affordable cost; however, if any patient does not possess the means to pay for treatment, he or she would not be turned away; our facility will tap into government and private funding to cover treatment cost.

The beauty of this service is that there isnât a charge of any kind to take part in our program because it is completely funded by government grants. Individuals that would take part would more than likely not have the means to pay a monthly deductible. Due to the nature of the business listed as a non-profit agency, there is no way to make a profit of any kind, as it would jeopardize the business in its entirety.

Some of the market factors that create a demand for our services include the need of medical care after having maximized all resources, the number of low income families, and the number of patients facing health issues needed extended medical care.

Opportunities that may derive from this business is the opportunity to expand and open multiple facilities, while extending a helping hand to many more in need. The risk, however, is the unstable funds deriving from grants. This can pose a huge treat to the business, as grants often times come and go and cannot be counted on as a constant income.

After studying the healthcare system and current policies in place, data shows many individuals facing severe health issues usually go untreated and uncared for due to the outrageous cost of medical care. It is devastating to see how often people, especially the elderly, are sent home and forgotten for the mere reason that hospitals and doctors are not willing to care for patients without financial means. In fact, in 2009 Harvard news reported 45,000 annual deaths due to lack of health coverage in the U.S. alone, which is significantly higher than the 18,000 reported by USA Today in 2002.

Financial Analysis

Clermont will be a nonprofit organization, dedicated to help the most needed. To open the facility fully operational we must take in consideration some fixed expenses like the land acquisition, permits, interest, brokers, administration fees, professionals (facility setup), staff, reports (environmental, occupational, fire, FDA), electricity, water, phone, water & sewer , connections, taxes, insurance, management, security, advertising, accountants, food, lawn mowers, bank fees, etc.

The facility will need have a total value of approximately three million dollars, but if we break the price of the land acquisition in to a thirty (30) year mortgage we can star up the business with an investment of approximately $ 233,944.61 USD to cover the first month of operation including all the startup permits and connections. After the first month the fixed expenses will be $184,444.00 USD with the exception of the months were taxes are due; taxes are around $ 43,000.00 USD paid quarterly will increase the tax month (depending on the facility fiscal year) for $ 10,750.00 USD approximately. We will fund all the costs with private and public funding, fundraiser, events, raffles, and most important with the help of the community.

As we mentioned before, Clermont is a nonprofit organization and we will do everything in our power to give the relief to the families in need. No one will be rejected because they do not have the money or the insurance cannot help. No money will be required from patient and every single dollar received will be spent in the patients, and in improving our facility and our service every day.

We believe our financial even breaking point will be a year after we begin operations, and be profitable soon after. There are many patients in need, and with the government and public grants each person will receive the treatment they need, and we will become the hope of many.

Learn more about Social Security and Medicare reform (to improve financial strength of the programs) or solvency through Internet exploration. Find an article or resource related to one of these topics. Attach the article and write a brief summary (300-400 words) of what you found. Summarize the Article.

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

U.S. Social Security reform: the clock is ticking

Clocks are seen during the performance "tck tck tck" by Global Campaign for Climate Action at the Barcelona Climate Change Talks, November 4, 2009. REUTERS/Albert Gea

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Can you count on your Social Security benefits when retirement rolls around?

Most Americans worry about this - partly due to the nonsense they hear from political opponents of Social Security and ill-informed media. You will hear that the program is bankrupt, its reserves are nothing but a bunch of IOUs, or that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

All of those claims are false, but there is one good reason for concern. Social Security faces a long-term financial imbalance that would force sharp benefit cuts in 2034 unless the government makes changes. The problem stems from falling fertility rates and labor force growth - which reduces collection of payroll taxes that fund the system - and also from the retirement of baby boomers, which increases benefit costs.

Absent reform, Social Security could continue to pay roughly 75 percent of promised benefits. The cuts would mean that the typical 65-year-old worker could expect Social Security to replace 27 percent of pre-retirement income, down from 36 percent today, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

No surprise, then, that only 37 percent of workers are âvery or somewhat confidentâ that Social Security will be able to maintain current benefit levels in the future, according to survey research by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) - although confidence is much higher among older workers and retirees.

From a math standpoint, potential solutions to the problem are straightforward. The cuts can be avoided through increased revenue, benefit reductions or some combination of the two. But the politics are another matter.

Republicans are far from holding a unified position on the issue. For example, U.S. Representative Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has proposed legislation containing two significant benefit cuts: gradually raising full retirement ages to 69 by 2030, and using a less generous annual cost-of-living adjustment formula known as the chained CPI.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has so far held to his campaign promise of opposing cuts. He has suggested that economic growth will solve the problem by stimulating wage growth and payroll tax collections - a position most economists dismiss as unrealistic.

REPUBLICAN ENTHUSIASM LACKING

The last major Republican reform proposal dates back to the George W. Bush administration, which proposed shifting the program to personal savings accounts - an idea that aroused Republican passion but that went down in flames.

âThat was an idea that got people excited, but there hasnât been much enthusiasm for Social Security reform among Republicans since then,â said Andrew Biggs, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Biggs worked on Social Security reform as an associate director of the White House National Economic Council.

Meanwhile, Democrats are in no mood to work with the Trump administration on anything that forces a compromise on their core values - and they have shifted significantly to the left on Social Security reform. Representative John Larson has introduced legislation that would not only restore trust fund balance but expand benefits. That is by far the best approach, since roughly half of all households have saved less than $25,000, according to EBRI. Larsonâs bill is cosponsored by more than 80 percent of the Democratic House caucus - more than any previous expansion bill.

The bill would increase benefits by 2 percent across the board, shift to a more generous annual cost-of-living adjustment that reflects spending by seniors and set a new minimum benefit at 25 percent above the poverty line. It also would cut taxes for millions of retirees by boosting significantly the threshold for taxation of benefits.

The plan raises revenue by gradually increasing the payroll tax rates that fund the program. The rate hikes would begin in 2019, and by 2042, workers and employers would pay 7.4 percent each, instead of the current 6.2 percent.

Larson, a Connecticut Democrat, also proposes changes to the payroll tax cap for very wealthy beneficiaries. Currently, payroll tax is collected only on wages up to $127,200; the plan would start collecting taxes again on wages above $400,000. That exempts more income than many earlier expansion plans, which either removed the cap entirely or resumed taxation at $250,000.

The payroll tax cap feature played an important role in boosting support for expansion legislation, according to Max Richtman, CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a progressive advocacy group that supports the bill. âIt brought many of the more conservative Democratic legislators on board,â he said.

Of course, the Larson bill is going nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress, so Social Security reform will not happen before the 2018 midterm elections at the earliest - and perhaps much later than that. But that does not mean beneficiaries should worry about draconian cuts in 2034.

Even if reform is not achieved by 2034, Biggs thinks the problem likely would be solved at the 11th hour through tax increases - simply because benefit cuts must be enacted and phased in over long periods to give beneficiaries time to adjust.

âIf they were going to do this by cutting benefits, it should have been enacted 20 years ago,â he said. âIf you want to do it by raising taxes you want to wait as long as possible, so that you get to the point where the only solution is to put more money into the program.â

But the uncertainty on Social Security policy will continue to undermine public confidence in the program - and that is worrying. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.