Case 1 Team Results

Due: November 5, 2013

Team: Eikenberry, Gamble, Hinkle, Liu, Zhang Page 1 of 17

Team: Steven Eikenberry, Dale Gamble, Jessica Hinkle, Run Liu, Jinliang Zhang

ACG5075 MBA Section 4993 Professor: Joost Impink

Managerial Accounting, CASE #1

A. Explore the difference between the amounts charged (charges) and the cost (costs). You may treat the difference as a discount. Does the discount depend on the state the hospital operates in?

Yes, the discount depends on the state the hospital operates in. A more detailed analysis is explored below.

Example 1:

In Chart 1 (Above), the average discounts for surgery procedure 460 (SPINAL FUSION EXCEPT CERVICAL W/O MCC) were compared by state with the national average of $67,790.

Chart 1 indicates that average discounts can vary dramatically from one state to another for Procedure 460. For example, the average discount in California is approximately six times higher than those in Vermont or Hawaii.

Next, each state’s average discount was statistically compared to the nationwide distribution of discounts to determine how well each state matched the national distribution. Note that the z-‐values calculated for Table 1 (Below) depend on more than just the average discount for each state. The z-‐values also depend on how many hospitals (n) reported data in that state. The more data points for that state, the less likely the calculated average discount could be a statistical anomaly.

Utilizing the z-‐value takes this concern into account and allows us to determine how probable it would be for a random sample of size n to have a state average this high above (or below) the national average. These probabilities are reflected in the column labeled ‘.05 α Test’ which reports whether the particular state has less than a 5% chance of matching the nationwide distribution, either on the ‘High’ or the ‘Low’ side. If there is a greater than 5% chance of matching the nationwide distribution, the state is listed as ‘In Range’.

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000

MD VT

HI RI

ME DE

MA MI

NY

OR

ND IA

ID

AR

WI

UT

MN

CT

NH

MT AL

KS

WV NE

OH

MS

KY

NC VA

SD

AK

OK

MO GA

WY

National Average

IN

LA

TN

NM

DC

IL

PA

WA SC

TX

AZ

FL

NV NJ

CO

CA

Chart 1: Average Discount For Procedure 460, by State



Table 1: Average Discounts and Probabilities of Matching National Distribution for Procedure 460, by State

State

State Average Discount

Sample Size Z-‐Value P-‐Value .05 α Test

AK $64,894 3 -‐0.111 0.46 In Range AL $49,516 27 -‐2.101 0.02 Low AR $44,078 16 -‐2.098 0.02 Low AZ $80,770 23 1.377 0.92 In Range CA $126,411 96 12.706 1.00 High CO $107,869 28 4.692 1.00 High CT $45,322 18 -‐2.109 0.02 Low DC $73,002 4 0.231 0.59 In Range DE $24,840 3 -‐1.646 0.05 In Range FL $88,429 91 4.356 1.00 High GA $67,527 45 -‐0.039 0.48 In Range HI $18,757 4 -‐2.169 0.02 Low IA $42,586 17 -‐2.299 0.01 Low ID $43,482 11 -‐1.783 0.04 In Range IL $73,695 55 0.969 0.83 In Range IN $68,369 39 0.080 0.53 In Range KS $49,650 16 -‐1.605 0.05 In Range KY $55,427 16 -‐1.094 0.14 In Range LA $69,594 27 0.207 0.58 In Range MA $29,195 21 -‐3.913 0.00 Low MD $2,385 27 -‐7.518 0.00 Low ME $23,694 7 -‐2.581 0.00 Low MI $37,934 41 -‐4.229 0.00 Low MN $44,713 22 -‐2.394 0.01 Low MO $66,622 30 -‐0.141 0.44 In Range MS $54,555 15 -‐1.134 0.13 In Range MT $49,474 9 -‐1.216 0.11 In Range NC $61,265 32 -‐0.817 0.21 In Range ND $40,751 3 -‐1.036 0.15 In Range NE $53,004 14 -‐1.224 0.11 In Range NH $49,456 7 -‐1.073 0.14 In Range NJ $95,408 31 3.402 1.00 High NM $71,097 9 0.219 0.59 In Range NV $91,818 14 1.989 0.98 High NY $38,565 51 -‐4.617 0.00 Low OH $54,241 53 -‐2.182 0.01 Low OK $65,426 21 -‐0.240 0.41 In Range OR $40,518 19 -‐2.630 0.00 Low PA $74,667 56 1.139 0.87 In Range RI $19,509 7 -‐2.826 0.00 Low SC $79,125 26 1.279 0.90 In Range SD $63,024 10 -‐0.333 0.37 In Range TN $69,813 33 0.257 0.60 In Range TX $79,442 119 2.812 1.00 High UT $44,552 11 -‐1.705 0.04 In Range VA $62,017 39 -‐0.798 0.21 In Range VT $17,322 4 -‐2.233 0.01 Low WA $75,631 29 0.934 0.82 In Range WI $44,254 23 -‐2.497 0.01 Low WV $52,319 6 -‐0.838 0.20 In Range WY $67,571 4 -‐0.010 0.50 In Range



Table 1 (previous page) shows that 22 of the 50 states (51 if including DC) have less than a 5% chance of matching the national distribution, six on the high side and sixteen on the low side. The six high states are highlighted in red.

Similarly, the average state discounts for Procedure 470 (MAJOR JOINT REPLACEMENT OR REATTACHMENT OF LOWER EXTREMITY W/O MCC) were found to vary widely:

It was then determined that 28 of the 50 states have less than a 5% probability of matching the national distribution. Six of the states have improbably high discounts, and twenty-‐two have improbably low discounts. Again, the six high states are highlighted in red in Table 2; note that these are the same states that were indicated as having high discounts in Table 1, as seen on the following page:

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

MD

VT

MA

MT ND RI

MI

ME

WV HI

MN

DE

NY ID

CT

UT

IA

SD

OR

WI

AR

KY

KS

OH

NC

WY

NE

MO

NH

DC

IN

OK

GA

VA

AK

NM

WA

National Average

TN

LA

PA

IL

AL

AZ

MS SC

CO

TX

FL

NV NJ

CA

Chart 2: Average Discount For Procedure 470, by State



Table 2: Average Discounts and Probabilities of Matching National Distribution for Procedure 470, by State

State

State Average Discount

Sample Size Z-‐Value P-‐Value .05 α Test

AK 35945.62 7 -‐0.170 0.43 In Range AL 40129.94 53 0.795 0.79 In Range AR 27045.70 28 -‐2.292 0.01 Low AZ 40190.03 49 0.782 0.78 In Range CA 68788.17 235 19.880 1.00 High CO 45028.52 44 2.071 0.98 High CT 24051.72 29 -‐3.000 0.00 Low DC 34465.29 6 -‐0.308 0.38 In Range DE 22905.26 5 -‐1.352 0.09 In Range FL 52867.21 151 7.828 1.00 High GA 34965.45 81 -‐0.944 0.17 In Range HI 21457.87 11 -‐2.204 0.01 Low IA 24277.00 33 -‐3.147 0.00 Low ID 23934.49 12 -‐1.947 0.03 In Range IL 39576.49 110 0.904 0.82 In Range IN 34595.39 74 -‐1.034 0.15 In Range KS 28498.44 44 -‐2.473 0.01 Low KY 27333.74 48 -‐2.918 0.00 Low LA 38727.72 62 0.402 0.66 In Range MA 17698.81 56 -‐6.140 0.00 Low MD 1317.38 43 -‐9.832 0.00 Low ME 20850.02 20 -‐3.085 0.00 Low MI 20665.65 89 -‐6.580 0.00 Low MN 22464.89 49 -‐4.361 0.00 Low MO 32181.24 63 -‐1.748 0.04 In Range MS 40661.36 30 0.719 0.76 In Range MT 18229.52 12 -‐2.766 0.00 Low NC 29246.40 80 -‐3.058 0.00 Low ND 18703.99 6 -‐1.908 0.03 In Range NE 30619.23 21 -‐1.306 0.10 In Range NH 34311.62 13 -‐0.476 0.32 In Range NJ 62802.39 60 8.124 1.00 High NM 37329.20 23 -‐0.033 0.49 In Range NV 60848.54 21 4.435 1.00 High NY 23747.22 141 -‐6.766 0.00 Low OH 29003.33 126 -‐3.951 0.00 Low OK 34835.12 51 -‐0.788 0.22 In Range OR 24957.31 31 -‐2.893 0.00 Low PA 38777.25 135 0.617 0.73 In Range RI 19375.31 10 -‐2.375 0.01 Low SC 43355.07 43 1.592 0.94 In Range SD 24519.72 15 -‐2.083 0.02 Low TN 38068.41 63 0.188 0.57 In Range TX 47996.88 224 6.513 1.00 High UT 24081.10 27 -‐2.889 0.00 Low VA 35036.75 64 -‐0.815 0.21 In Range VT 14809.95 6 -‐2.303 0.01 Low WA 37397.22 45 -‐0.027 0.49 In Range WI 25123.71 63 -‐4.070 0.00 Low WV 21080.97 27 -‐3.535 0.00 Low WY 29776.63 11 -‐1.061 0.14 In Range



As noted above, the same six states (California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and Texas) have improbably high discounts for both Procedures 460 and 470. In statistical terms, this means the same states had high ‘z-‐values’ in both data sets. On closer inspection, it becomes apparent that many of the states with low discounts for Procedure 460 also have low discounts for Procedure 470. We can use statistics to determine how well each state’s average discount for Procedure 460 correlates to that state’s discount for Procedure 470. Chart 3 shows this correlation:

As shown in Chart 3, the Coefficient of Determination (R2) between discounts for Procedures 460 and 470 for a particular state is 0.8103; this means that over 80% of the variation in the Procedure 470 discount can be attributed to the variation in the Procedure 460 discount in that same state.

Tables 1 and 2 respectively indicate that 22 of the states’ average discounts for Procedure 460 and 28 of the states’ average discounts for Procedure 470 do not match the national average distribution. This means that the discounts depend heavily on the state in which the hospital operates. Chart 3 further indicates that the states are at least 80% correlated from one procedure to another; states that have high discounts for one procedure are likely to have high discounts for another, and states with low discounts for one procedure are likely to have low discounts for another.

This correlation increases to nearly 90% when comparing the probabilities (as represented by the z-‐values) that a state is higher or lower than the national average across different procedures, as shown in Chart 4, located on the following page.

R² = 0.81029

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000

State 470 Discount

State 460 Discount

Chart 3: Correlation between State Discounts for Procedures 460 and 470



Once again, the discount for a procedure depends on the state in which the hospital operates.

The calculations above were repeated after taking outliers into account. Outliers were determined via two methods:

In the first method, any discount found to be greater than three standard deviations from the population mean was classified as an outlier. Assuming a normal distribution, this would theoretically classify only 0.3% of the samples as outliers. Instead, 18 of 1332 samples (1.4%) for Procedure 460 and 38 of 2750 samples (again 1.4%) for Procedure 470 were calculated as outliers with this approach.

A second approach of identifying outliers was also examined. This method calculated an interquartile range (Q3-‐Q1: the middle 50% of the discount population falls into this range), and classified any value greater than 1.5 times the interquartile range above the third quartile or less than 1.5 times the interquartile range below the first quartile as an outlier. This more aggressive approach classified 54 of 1332 samples (4.1%) for Procedure 460 and 113 of 2750 samples (again 4.1%) for Procedure 470 as outliers. Since this second method had greater potential to disrupt the earlier finding, it was utilized to identify and exclude the outliers from the calculations.

In both methods, all of the outliers were on the high side.

As a result, for Procedure 460, 21 of the 50 states (and DC) were found to have average discounts less than 5% probable of matching the national average, vs 22 states previously. It should be noted that if the probability were increased to 5.1% the result would have been 22 states again.

R² = 0.89248

-‐15

-‐10

-‐5

0

5

10

15

20

25

-‐10.000 -‐5.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000

State 470 z-‐Value

State 460 z-‐Value

Chart 4: Correlation between State Discount z-‐Values for Procedures 460 and 470



For Procedure 470 the number of “non-‐conforming” states actually increased to 30 from 28. The six high states were unchanged, but removing the outliers (all of which were on the high side) reduced the deviation sufficiently to cause more of the low states to fall outside the now-‐narrower 5% threshold. In any event, the conclusion that the discounts depend on the state in which the hospital operates was not affected. Similarly, the coefficient of determination between discounts for Procedures 460 and 470 reduced almost insignificantly to 0.80 (see Chart 5), while the coefficient of determination between z-‐values for the discounts decreased slightly to 0.86; the correlations remain very strong:

R² = 0.8022

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

State 470 Discount

State 460 Discount

Chart 5: Correlation between State Discounts for Procedures 460 and 470 (excluding outliers)



B. Explore the costs for both drgs. What is the distribution of the average cost for each drg over the hospitals? Are there differences between states? (You may ignore the amounts charged (charges) in this and following questions.)

The distribution for both procedures is right skewed. Most states are near the average, but in both cases there are several states far above the average. This can be seen in the histograms that follow. The average cost of each procedure across all states and hospitals is highlighted in yellow. Outliers were included in this analysis. Please see below: DRG 460 State Costs

Bin Frequency 22000 1 24000 2 26000 13 28000 14 30000 10 32000 4 34000 3 More 4 DRG 470 State Costs

Bin Frequency 12000 1 13000 8 14000 19 15000 9 16000 5 17000 2 18000 2 More 5

460 Statistics Mean 27995.48079 Standard Deviation 3623.656395 Skewness 1.02148753 Range 17333.0717 Minimum 21268.3718 Maximum 38601.4435

470 Statistics Mean 14572.47531 Standard Deviation 2075.497573 Skewness 1.466339835 Range 9451.739479 Minimum 11709.20188 Maximum 21160.94136

DRG ID Number of Procedures Total Cost of All Procedures Average Cost of Procedure 460 65997 $1,804,860,128 $27,348 470 427207 $6,119,519,851 $14,324



Steps taken in the calculation of the above responses: 1. Calculate the total cost of each procedure for each hospital using sum product 2. Use a pivot table to group hospitals by state and aggregate the total costs and number of procedures (Pivot worksheet: in Appendix)

3. Use these aggregated numbers to get a state average (Columns D & G in Pivot Work sheet) 4. Create histograms for each 5. Run descriptive statistics on each

Additionally, the comparison chart above demonstrates that with exception of rare outliers, there are

no obvious differences in the cost of the drgs by state.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

AK

AR

CA

CT

DE

GA

IA

IL

KS

LA

MD MI

MO

MT ND

NH

NM

NY

OK

PA

SC

TN

UT

VT

WI

WY

Cost of drgs by states

average_cost_460 average_cost_470



C. In addition to B): Does the degree of specialization impact the costs? Use the number of unique drgs for each hospital as a proxy of specialization.

The degree of specialization has little impact on costs. For both DRG460 and DRG 470, the correlation is less than .1 between these data sets and the coefficient of determination is less than 1%. (this means less than 1% of the price variance is explained by the number of unique DRGs). Outliers here were again included and even they could not create a correlation:

460: Correlation b/w DRG & Cost

470: Correlation b/w DRG & cost 0.071341497 0.084372197

Steps taken in the calculation of the above response:

1. Find the average price for both 460 & 470 for each hospital using a V lookup from the data on Question B spreadsheet

2. We have more info on hospital specialization than for cost of 460 & 470, so eliminate hospitals with no data before running a correlation (this is where columns F&G have N/As … correlation data sets are J&K columns and N&O columns (In Appendix)

3. Run correlations between J&K and N&O , answers in yellow above 4. Create scatter plots between #Unique DRGs and average cost 5. Add R squared to each scatterplot to find the coefficient of determination

R² = 0.0051

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Avg Price

Unique DRGs

460 Price vs. Unique DRGs

R² = 0.00712

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Avg Price

Unique DRGs

470 Price vs. Unique # DRGs



D. Do you believe there are economies of scale (positive or negative) for drgs 460 and 470 for Shands and FRMC?

There is no evidence in the data to suggest that Shands and FRMC will observe economies of scale (or diseconomies of scale) as the result of their joint venture initiative.

To determine if there are economies of scale for Procedures 460 or 470, it is necessary to correlate the costs of the procedures with the number of patients at each hospital on which those procedures are performed. Charts 6 and 7 plot the costs against the number of discharges (which serves as a measure of the number of patients treated, presumably with a small error for patients that died during treatment) for Procedures 460 and 470, respectively.

R² = 0.00506

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Cost of Treatment

# Patients Treated (Discharges)

Chart 6: Cost of Procedure 460 vs # of Patients Treated

R² = 0.00487

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Cost of Treatment


Chart 7: Cost of Procedure 470 vs # of Patients Treated



The coefficient of determination is very low for both procedures, only half of one percent, which indicates that increasing the number of procedures performed has no discernible effect on cost. Hence, there are no economies of scale for either procedure.

To discern the influence of outliers on the data, the interquartile range procedure described in Section A was again utilized to identify and remove outlying data points. Outliers were removed both for the cost of treatment, and for the number of patients treated. Charts 8 and 9 show that the results are unchanged: there is no evidence of a correlation between cost of treatment and number of procedures performed. If anything, the correlation decreased with the removal of the outliers.

R² = 5E-‐05

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Cost of Treatment


Chart 8: Cost of Procedure 460 vs # of Patients Treated (Outliers Removed)

R² = 0.00025

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Cost of Treatment


Chart 9: Cost of Procedure 470 vs # of Patients Treated (Outliers Removed)



Finally, given the earlier findings that discounts and costs depend heavily on the states in which the hospitals are located, the costs and patient counts for just the Florida hospitals were analyzed. Charts 10 and 11 show that while the Coefficient of Determination did increase, the resulting correlation was still insignificant at 2% and 1% respectively for Procedures 460 and 470.

In conclusion, there is no evidence in the data to suggest that Shands and FRMC will observe economies of scale (or diseconomies of scale) as the result of their joint venture initiative.

R² = 0.01997

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Cost of Treatment


Chart 10: Florida Cost of Procedure 460 vs # of Patients Treated

R² = 0.01102

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Cost of Treatment


Chart 11: Florida Cost of Procedure 470 vs # of Patients Treated



E. Shortly address challenges that Shands and FRMC need to be manage in case they go ahead and form the joint venture. Address issues like profit/cost sharing, difference in goals (profit vs educational), compensation, et cetera.

The main challenge facing Shands is the difference in missions. Shands is a nonprofit

organization, while FRMC is profit-‐seeking. Therefore FRMC will be more naturally inclined to reduce costs & revenue. As a manager of FRMC, the joint venture would be a hard sell for me (based on no knowledge of economies of scale) because I can perform both DRGs at a lower cost than can Shands. However, 460 is a more expensive operation so if I only perform 470, my costs will be minimized. Depending on my contribution margin on 470 though, I may be less profitable even though my costs are lower.

Profit sharing is the next largest challenge. Will each hospital simply cease doing one of the

procedures and absorb all costs and profits for the one they continue to do? Or, for instance, will FRMC be sharing some profits with Shands since Shands would be agreeing to take on the more costly procedure. As mentioned in the paragraph above, if FRMC’s contribution margin is such that they make less by only performing 470, they will surely want to share some of Shands’ 460 profit, since FRMC is a profit seeker.

Yet another key difficulty faced by a Shands/FRMC joint venture would be legal approval

from both entities. To reduce potential lawsuit liabilities, each hospital doubtless follows strict protocols for many aspects of their operations. These protocols would cover admitting procedures, surgery confirmation procedures (eg, confirming the left knee rather than the right knee is to be replaced), patient discharge routines, medical record retention, billing, and many more. The lawyers for each hospital would either need to approve the use of each of the other hospital’s protocols, or endeavor to merge the two sets of protocols into a unified whole.



APPENDIX PIVOT TABLE referenced in Question B: Column Labels

460 470

Sum of Total Cost Sum of # of Procedures Sum of Total Cost

Sum of # of Procedures

Total Sum of Total Cost

Total Sum of # of Procedures

35752133 1681 98486097 8411 134238230 10092 4458458 118 13712290 648 18170748 766 35167961 1215 127188724 8943 162356685 10158 17771815 786 65498938 5441 83270753 6227 127779960 3926 510999866 29731 638779826 33657 41071795 1459 100406568 6991 141478363 8450 19919525 637 90347739.01 5324 110267264 5961

9674754.999 362 26829251 1817 36504005.99 2179 8469353 252 15948547 1013 24417900 1265

139564435 5754 383482177 29985 523046612 35739 61920757 2354 149663056 11250 211583813 13604 3312341 99 13588146 734 16900487 833 14131163 542 32631457 2365 46762620 2907 68252116 2321 298222570 20095 366474686 22416 49325741 1741 150670552 11499 199996293 13240 15544266 643 84594728 6599 100138994 7242 21166458 905 77952494 6188 99118952 7093 23483348 902 99609309.01 7469 123092657 8371 27456445 1079 70669146.99 5415 98125592 6494 7294069 272 34729438 2499 42023507 2771 49873065 1292 177512630 8854 227385695 10146 31927641 1016 158148214 9781 190075855 10797 81497328 3021 243509706 16847 325007034 19868 31172021 1089 141259814 9442 172431835 10531 14788567 601 58850400 4598 73638967 5199 46668427 1810 137916069 10731 184584496 12541 9916807 389 26691919 1987 36608726 2376 15478185 615 59238512 4349 74716697 4964 22161623 804 36828170 2605 58989793 3409 7016262 243 31806675 2177 38822937 2420 24319463 832 150861798 10018 175181261 10850 7532685 272 31677870 2114 39210555 2386 68709233 2175 331005861 19371 399715094 21546 70264727 2648 214425540 15820 284690267 18468 3368289 137 28987053 2093 32355342.01 2230 66182959 2540 212983942 16062 279166901 18602 28729344 1143 87552301 7020 116281645 8163 23156967 825 64931343 4236 88088310 5061 64310631 2431 228609650 16712 292920281 19143 7074726 237 18814342 1206 25889068 1443 41238626 1536 102232876 7489 143471502 9025



13017176 512 36482007 2721 49499183 3233 51255764 2044 132692730 10063 183948494 12107 127697591 4943 385337836 27546 513035427 32489 16226092 583 50078498 3579 66304590 4162 3848101 113 13054492 719 16902593 832 57539838 2110 164402518 12410 221942356 14520 40362249 1307 143073902 9231 183436151 10538 6311293 243 34368416 2739 40679709 2982 23087562 805 125518283 9099 148605845 9904 5888728 169 12214044 622 18102772 791 12721264 464 33221346 2549 45942610 3013

1804860128 65997 6119519851 427207 7924379979 493204 PIVOT WORK SHEET referenced in Question B:

Column Labels

460

470

Row Labels Sum of Total Cost Sum of # of Procedures

Statewide Average Cost Sum of Total Cost

Sum of # of Procedures

Statewide Average Cost

10000-‐19999 35752133 1681 21268.3718 98486097 8411 11709.20188 20000-‐29999 4458458 118 37783.54237 13712290 648 21160.94136 30000-‐39999 35167961 1215 28944.82387 127188724 8943 14222.15409 40000-‐49999 17771815 786 22610.45165 65498938 5441 12038.03308 50000-‐59999 127779960 3926 32547.11156 510999866 29731 17187.44294 60000-‐69999 41071795 1459 28150.6477 100406568 6991 14362.26119 70000-‐79999 19919525 637 31270.83987 90347739.01 5324 16969.89839 80000-‐89999 9674754.999 362 26725.84254 26829251 1817 14765.68574 90000-‐99999 8469353 252 33608.54365 15948547 1013 15743.87661 100000-‐109999 139564435 5754 24255.20247 383482177 29985 12789.1338 110000-‐119999 61920757 2354 26304.48471 149663056 11250 13303.38276 120000-‐129999 3312341 99 33457.9899 13588146 734 18512.46049 130000-‐139999 14131163 542 26072.25646 32631457 2365 13797.65624 140000-‐149999 68252116 2321 29406.34037 298222570 20095 14840.63548 150000-‐159999 49325741 1741 28331.84434 150670552 11499 13102.92652 160000-‐169999 15544266 643 24174.5972 84594728 6599 12819.32535 170000-‐179999 21166458 905 23388.35138 77952494 6188 12597.3649 180000-‐189999 23483348 902 26034.75388 99609309.01 7469 13336.36484 190000-‐199999 27456445 1079 25446.19555 70669146.99 5415 13050.62733 200000-‐209999 7294069 272 26816.43015 34729438 2499 13897.33414 210000-‐219999 49873065 1292 38601.4435 177512630 8854 20048.86266 220000-‐229999 31927641 1016 31424.8435 158148214 9781 16168.92076 230000-‐239999 81497328 3021 26976.93744 243509706 16847 14454.18804 240000-‐249999 31172021 1089 28624.44536 141259814 9442 14960.79369 250000-‐259999 14788567 601 24606.60067 58850400 4598 12799.13006 260000-‐269999 46668427 1810 25783.66133 137916069 10731 12852.11714 270000-‐279999 9916807 389 25493.07712 26691919 1987 13433.27579 280000-‐289999 15478185 615 25167.78049 59238512 4349 13621.18004 290000-‐299999 22161623 804 27564.20771 36828170 2605 14137.49328



300000-‐309999 7016262 243 28873.50617 31806675 2177 14610.32384 310000-‐319999 24319463 832 29230.1238 150861798 10018 15059.07347 320000-‐329999 7532685 272 27693.69485 31677870 2114 14984.80132 330000-‐339999 68709233 2175 31590.45195 331005861 19371 17087.70125 340000-‐349999 70264727 2648 26535.01775 214425540 15820 13554.07965 350000-‐359999 3368289 137 24586.0511 28987053 2093 13849.52365 360000-‐369999 66182959 2540 26056.28307 212983942 16062 13260.11344 370000-‐379999 28729344 1143 25135.03412 87552301 7020 12471.83775 380000-‐389999 23156967 825 28069.05091 64931343 4236 15328.4568 390000-‐399999 64310631 2431 26454.39366 228609650 16712 13679.37111 410000-‐419999 7074726 237 29851.16456 18814342 1206 15600.61526 420000-‐429999 41238626 1536 26848.0638 102232876 7489 13651.0717 430000-‐439999 13017176 512 25424.17188 36482007 2721 13407.57332 440000-‐449999 51255764 2044 25076.20548 132692730 10063 13186.19994 450000-‐459999 140418855 5407 25969.82708 418559182 30095 13907.93095 460000-‐469999 16226092 583 27832.06175 50078498 3579 13992.31573 470000-‐479999 3848101 113 34053.99115 13054492 719 18156.45619 490000-‐499999 57539838 2110 27270.0654 164402518 12410 13247.58405 500000-‐509999 40362249 1307 30881.59832 143073902 9231 15499.28523 510000-‐519999 6311293 243 25972.39918 34368416 2739 12547.79701 520000-‐529999 23087562 805 28680.20124 125518283 9099 13794.73382 530000-‐539999 5888728 169 34844.54438 12214044 622 19636.72669

Case 1 Team Results

Documents