Which access proposal should the panel fund?
Present a funding request that meets the panel’s stated purpose.
The question
You are presenting a fictional UK healthcare operations work sample to finance and clinic operations leaders. In a 90-second opening, recommend one mutually exclusive plan for one quarter. Choose the lowest total-cost option that delivers at least 150 net new completed appointments, costs no more than £150 per net new completion and fits the £30,000 budget. These are exercise funding gates, not medical-outcome claims.
| Evening sessions | Mobile sessions | |
|---|---|---|
| Total cost (GBP) | 18000 | 30000 |
| Reported new completed appointments | 180 | 240 |
Both counts are labelled new completions in this report. Confirm what is additional; the reports alone do not establish a causal effect.
“Choose the exhibit, give the opening and defend the recommendation under questions.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Read the decision
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Compare each plan with the minimum, unit-cost cap and budget.
The strong move. The minimum is a gate; total cost decides between qualifying plans.
Choose mobile only because 240 exceeds 180.
Tempting, but it misses something. That ignores the lowest-total-cost objective once the minimum is met.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Evening sessions meet the reported gates: 180 completions at £100 each and £18,000 total. Mobile meets them too: 240 at £125 each and £30,000 total. The brief asks for the cheaper qualifying plan, so I start with evening sessions and verify the counts.”
Why it works: The minimum is a gate; total cost decides between qualifying plans.
Step 2: Open with the ask
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Lead with the funding ask and one comparable exhibit.
The strong move. The opening gives the decision, evidence, period and next check.
Start with attendance percentages and a long background.
Tempting, but it misses something. The panel needs a funding decision, and attendance is not the specified net new completed-appointment measure.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I recommend evening sessions at £18,000 for this quarter. The reported 180 new completed appointments meet the 150 minimum at £100 each. Before releasing funds, I would confirm these are additional completions.”
Why it works: The opening gives the decision, evidence, period and next check.
Step 3: Answer the audit
An audit finds that 80 of the 180 evening appointments were moved from existing sessions and are not new. All 240 mobile completions remain verified as net new. Costs and the panel’s gates stay unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Correct the denominator before defending the proposal.
The strong move. Moved appointments are activity, not additional value.
Keep the £100 unit cost using all 180 appointments.
Tempting, but it misses something. The 80 moved appointments cannot remain in the net new denominator.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The audit changes evening sessions to 100 net new completions: 180 minus 80 moved appointments. At £180 per net new completion, it fails both the 150 minimum and £150 cap. Mobile still qualifies.”
Why it works: Moved appointments are activity, not additional value.
Step 4: Revise the request
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Change to mobile and explain the revised denominator.
The strong move. Name the failed assumption and give the qualifying alternative.
Defend evening sessions because they are £12,000 cheaper.
Tempting, but it misses something. A lower price cannot qualify a plan that misses both the minimum outcome and unit-cost cap.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I now recommend mobile sessions: £30,000 for 240 net new completions at £125 each. Evening sessions are cheaper but no longer meet the purpose or unit-cost gate. The audit corrected the additional-completion count; it did not change the budget.”
Why it works: Name the failed assumption and give the qualifying alternative.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Recommend mobile after the audit.
- Because
- It meets the net new completion, unit-cost and total budget gates.
- What would change it
- Different verified incremental counts or costs could change the choice.
Common traps
- Counting rescheduled work as new value.
- Choosing volume without reading the decision rule.
Check your answer
- I named the panel’s decision.
- I kept the same quarter and unit.
- I corrected the exhibit after the audit.
- I changed the request when the gates failed.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026