Magnolia Manufacturing makes wing components for large aircraft. Kevin Choi is the pro-

duction manager, responsible for manufacturing, and Michelle Michaels is the marketing

manager. Both managers are paid a flat salary and are eligible for a bonus. The bonus is

equal to 1 percent of their base salary for every 10 percent profit that exceeds a target. The

maximum bonus is 5 percent of salary. Kevin’s base salary is $180,000 and Michelle’s is

$240,000.

The target profit for this year is $6 million. Kevin has read about a new manufacturing

technique that would increase annual profit by 20 percent. He is unsure whether to employ the

new technique this year, wait, or not employ it at all. Using the new technique will not affect

the target.

Required

a. Suppose that profit without using the technique this year will be $6 million. By how much

will Kevin’s bonus change if he decides to employ the new technique? By how much will

Michelle’s bonus change if Kevin decides to employ the new technique?

b. Suppose that profit without using the technique this year will be $8.5 million. By how

much will Kevin’s bonus change if he decides to employ the new technique? By how much

will Michelle’s bonus change if Kevin decides to employ the new technique?

c. Suppose that profit without using the technique this year will be $4.8 million. By how

much will Kevin’s bonus change if he decides to employ the new technique? By how much

will Michelle’s bonus change if Kevin decides to employ the new technique?

d. Is it ethical for Kevin to consider the impact of the new technique on his bonus when

deciding whether or not to use it? Explain.

e. Assess the management control system used at Magnolia Manufacturing and provide

recommendations for changes, if any are required. Be sure to discuss:

• Decision authority

• Performance measures

• Compe nsation

Please summarize the below two articles in you own words 150 words each article

Article 1

HIPAA Privacy Rule Thwarts Clinical Research Recruitment

Feb. 15, 2005 — Since the federal government's sweeping medical privacy rule went into effect two years ago, the additional paperwork required of academic institutions to obtain patients' consent to participate in clinical research trials has caused enrollment to plummet by as much as 50% at one institution and confusion among many others, a new editorial concludes.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) included a major provision that required covered entities (hospitals, physicians, health plans, and other entities that handle patient information) to obtain confidentiality documentation from researchers before disclosing health data. This section of the law, which took effect as part of the overall medical privacy law in April 2003, was intended to ensure that patients' protected health information (PHI) would not be inappropriately disclosed or used during the course of a research trial.

But a lack of guidance by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about how to interpret this provision and the resulting variability in approaches by research institutions "could not have been what was intended by the law and is not optimal for balancing the need for confidentiality and research progress," said Roberta B. Ness, MD, MPH, chairman of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania. "To put out the rules without guidance has resulted in a lack of clarity," she told Medscape in an interview.

Writing in the February issue of the Annals of Epidemiology, Dr. Ness describes the before-and-after effect of HIPAA's rules governing medical research as it applied to patient recruitment in a single-institution, prospective study to determine the cause of preeclampsia.

In the pre-HIPAA phase of the study, called the Pregnancy Exposures and Preeclampsia Program Project (PEPP I), 2,892 women were recruited in 55 months, for an average of 12.4 women per week. The study was renewed in early 2002, but recruitment was shut down for four months while the maternity hospital at which the study was conducted decided how to comply with upcoming medical privacy laws.

Between April and September 2003, recruitment into the study took place under new rules that disallowed all waivers of HIPAA medical record review, according to Dr. Ness. (Waivers allowing an institution to use or disclose PHI for research purposes can be granted if specific conditions are met, according to the privacy rule).

Under that restriction, "the only medical records PEPP II staff could review to determine potential eligibility were for women who had enrolled into a research registry," Dr. Ness writes. "Only about 10% of women enrolled into the registry, presumably because only a clinical staff was authorized to initiate registry enrollment."

Shortly afterward, the hospital's institutional review board allowed applications for a waiver so that researchers could review medical records and flag those that represented potentially eligible subjects, as had been done before HIPAA. Recruitment was further hindered because health provider consent was required before the clinical research staff could approach potential research subjects, and when the maternity hospital merged with the University of Pittsburgh in June 2004.

After HIPAA took effect, the average recruitment rate for participation in PEPP II was 2.5 women per week without a waiver, 5.7 women per week with a waiver, and 3.3 women per week since retraction of the HIPAA waiver, according to Dr. Ness.

"[R]ecruitment with a HIPAA waiver, as compared to pre-HIPAA, decreased by half; and recruitment without a HIPAA waiver fell by half again as compared to with a waiver," Dr. Ness writes. "We cannot identify other systematic explanations for these trends other than the obvious: local interpretation of the HIPAA regulations had a negative effect on the pace of our research."

The slowdown in Pittsburgh's ability to recruit additional subjects into the preeclampsia study has put the program "way behind where we should be," said Dr. Ness. "I have a long career of running prospective studies, and we have never been this far behind on a study at this juncture."

Many research institutions report being in a similar situation, Dr. Ness notes in the editorial. Nearly three quarters (72%) of the 331 U.S. investigators polled by the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that HIPAA was having an adverse effect on clinical research during the first six months after its implementation. Negative effects on patient recruitment, data access, and data acquisition were cited by more than 68% of the respondents.

An HHS advisory committee has proposed modifications to HIPAA that would better coordinate the rule's requirements with those of the Common Rule, a federal law that protects human research subjects, Dr. Ness writes. "We can only hope that the new Secretary for Health and Human Services will adopt these modifications," she concludes.

Article 2

Established by FDA to Expedite Patient Access to Medications

Approximately 10-15 years elapse between the discovery of a new drug in the laboratory and its therapeutic use in the clinical setting.^[1] One factor influencing the duration of drug development is the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review of an agent's efficacy and safety data. In 2001, FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) approved 31 new molecular entities.^[2-4] The average time from sponsor submission of a new drug application (NDA) or biologics license application (BLA) to FDA approval of these compounds was 18.6 months, an increase from 17.2 months in 2000, 12.9 months in 1999, and 12.5 months in 1998.

FDA has implemented several programs intended to reduce the review time of a new pharmaceutical and accelerate patient access to medications for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases. This review article provides an overview of these initiatives, with a focus on fast-track designation, priority review, accelerated approval, and orphan drug status. Imatinib mesylate (Gleevec, Novartis), which was approved for three phases (chronic, accelerated, and blast crisis) of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) in May 2001 and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in February 2002, serves as an example of drug development focused on expedited patient access. The information on the clinical development and approval of imatinib was available through the Freedom of Information Act. Imatinib will be discussed throughout this review to illustrate the highlights and opportunities of each FDA program. Finally, the clinical implications of the programs will be described.

Regulatory Overview

There are multiple regulatory documents that outline the responsibilities of FDA and the industry sponsor throughout the drug development process, including the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992, the five-year renewal of PDUFA (PDUFA II), the recently approved PDUFA III, and the Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). In addition, supporting regulatory documents (i.e., guidance documents) have been established that specifically relate to fast-track designation, accelerated approval, priority review, and orphan drug status. Although these four programs share features, each is a distinct initiative with different requirements. Fast-track designation relates to the interactions between the sponsor and FDA during the drug development process. Accelerated approval refers specifically to the design of studies performed by the sponsor, and priority review sets the time frame for FDA review of a submitted BLA or NDA. Finally, allowing drug manufacturers to seek orphan drug status encourages the development of drugs to treat rare diseases.

Consider two countries: Canada and Sri Lanka. Assume that each can produce only two goods: maple syrup and jaggery. In a single year, Canada can produce 250,000 tons of maple syrup, or 90,000 tons of jaggery. In the same period of time, Sri Lanka can produce 1,000 tons of maple syrup, or 70,000 tons of jaggery.

Suppose that both nations are initially in a state of autarky. If Canada were to produce 170,000 tons of maple syrup and 36,000 tons of jaggery, then this allocation would be:

(A) Feasible and productively efficient. (B) Feasible and productively inefficient. (C) Infeasible. (D) Like Saturdays: for the boys

Suppose that both nations are initially in a state of autarky. If Sri Lanka were to produce 300 tons of maple syrup and 49,000 tons of jaggery, then this allocation would be:

(A) Feasible and productively efficient. (B) Feasible and productively inefficient. (C) Infeasible. (D) Built different.

Assume that both nations are productively efficient. Initially, before trade, Canada makes 125,000 tons of maple syrups and 45,000 tons of jaggery. Sri Lanka makes 200 tons of maple syrups and 56,000 tons of jaggery. Now they decide to trade. Which of the following is a beneficial trade for both nations?

(A) Canada gives Sri Lanka 1,000 tons of maple syrup in exchange for 1,000 tons of jaggery. (B) Canada gives Sri Lanka 3,000 tons of maple syrup in exchange for 1,000 tons of jaggery. (C) Canada gives Sri Lanka 6,000 tons of maple syrup in exchange for 1,500 tons of jaggery. (D) None of the above.

If each country were to specialize in the goods for which they have comparative advantage, how much would each produce?

(A) Canada would produce 250,000 tons of maple syrup, and Sri Lanka would produce 70,000 tons of jaggery. (B) Canada would produce 250,000 tons of maple syrup, and Sri Lanka would produce 1,000 tons of maple syrups. (C) Canada would produce 90,000 tons of jaggery, and Sri Lanka would produce 1,000 tons of maple syrup. (D) Canada would produce 90,000 tons of jaggery, and Sri Lanka would produce 70,000 tons of jaggery.

Patient Introduction Location: Medical-Surgical Unit 2315 Report from day shift nurse: Situation: Christopher Parrish is an 18-year-old male who was admitted at 1900 today. His mother visited him at his college dormitory and was very concerned with his health; he seemed weak and had lost weight since she last saw him. She took him to see his primary care provider, and the provider admitted him and has ordered a tube feeding. I placed an 8-Fr, 42-inch feeding tube in his right nares about an hour ago, and x-ray just called and confirmed placement in the stomach. The pump is in his room. He is up to the bathroom prn; otherwise bed rest. Background: Christopher was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis as a child and has had frequent hospitalizations previously. He reports fatigue and has recently lost 6 kg (13.2 lb) after he registered at the local college and moved to live in a dormitory. Chris's mom was here earlier, but she is a single parent and has two younger boys, so she had to go home. Assessment: Christopher is awake and alert. His heart rate and rhythm are regular at 80–85/min. Breath sounds are fine with a respiratory rate at 18/min. His color is a bit pale. Blood pressure is 118/78 mm Hg. He reports no pain and states he's not had much appetite the past few weeks. His belly is flat and nontender. Bowel sounds are normoactive. Recommendation: Christopher is due for vital signs and assessment. The tube feeding just arrived, and you will need to start it on the pump. He needs 720 kilocalories over 8 hours overnight. His regular diet is high calorie, high fat, but he wasn't too hungry this evening; just had a bit of his chocolate shake. You will need to give his pancreatic enzymes orally before you start the tube feeding. You should also assess his diet and reinforce patient education on nutrition. what are the assessment objective and subjective. Expected outcomes . Interventions nurse does . Rationale (because). Evaluation (did EO happen?).

Subjest: BADM 2161 Purchasing and supply managment

FOUR SQUARE LUMBER MILL

Case

Jon Johansen was the supplies buyer at Four Square’s Valdosta plant. One day he sat examining a traveling requisition (TR) card for ten carborundum saw blades. The specified blade was made in Switzerland and obtainable through a mill supply house in Birmingham at a cost of $225 each, F.O.B. Birmingham. Jon observed on the TR that some 110 blades were ordered a year. The requisition specified that no substitutes were permitted. Even so, Jon decided to see if any money could be saved through alternative sourcing. He contacted two of his better mill supply sources to see what they could do. Both suppliers indicated that the Dipson 412 blade was every bit as good as its Swiss counterpart. Based on an annual purchase of eighty or more blades, one supplier quoted a unit price of $112.50 per blade. (The second supplier’s price was $115.00.) Both prices were F.O.B. Valdosta. Jon then contacted Sam Sharpe, the foreman of sawing operations at Four Square. Jon explained the potential savings and asked Sam to give the American blade a try. Sam was certain that the Dipson blade would not stand up to the Swiss blade. After several minutes of trying to convince Sam of the desirability of buying the Dipson 412, Jon said that he thought that they really should give it a try. Sam left in a good humor saying, “O.K., but I know it won’t work.” Jon ordered ten Dipson blades. He included a provision that any unused blades could be returned for credit if the Dipson did not prove to be equal to the Swiss blade. Two days after the blades arrived, Sam entered Jon’s office. Sam was grinning from ear to ear, holding a saw blade in each hand. Both blades were burned as a result of the excess heat generated during the cutting operation. Jon was convinced that the boys in the yard had treated the blades unfairly to ensure that they would fail.

Questions:

1. What could Jon have done to avoid this situation?

2. What should Jon do now?

Rights Offerings?Sheary, Inc., is proposing a rights offering. Presently, there are 375,000 shares outstanding at $60 each. There will be 65,000 new shares offered at $57 each.

What is the new market value of the company?

How many rights are associated with one of the new shares?

What is the ex-rights price?

What is the value of a right?

In a clinical trial, 50 patients who received a new medication are randomly selected. It was found that 10 of them suffered serious side effects from this new medication. let p denote the population proportion of patients suffered serious side effects from this new medication. The 90% confidence interval for p is about

Faced with headquarters’ desire to add a new product line, Stefan Grenier, manager of Bilti Products’ East Division, felt that he had to see the numbers before he made a move. His division’s ROI has led the company for three years, and he doesn’t want any letdown.

     Bilti Products is a decentralized wholesaler with four autonomous divisions. The divisions are evaluated on the basis of ROI, with year-end bonuses given to divisional managers who have the highest ROI. Operating results for the company’s East Division for last year are given below:

The company had an overall ROI of 14% last year (considering all divisions). The new product line that headquarters wants Grenier’s East Division to add would require an investment of $5,000,000. The cost and revenue characteristics of the new product line per year would be as follows:

Required:
1. Compute the East Division’s ROI for last year; also compute the ROI as it would appear if the new product line were added. (Do not round intermediate calculations. )

ROI - Present %, New line %, and total % ?

2. If you were in Grenier’s position, would you accept or reject the new product line?

• Accept

• Reject

3. Why do you suppose headquarters is anxious for the East Division to add the new product line?

• Adding the new line would decrease the company's overall ROI.

• Adding the new line would increase the company's overall ROI.

4. Suppose that the company’s minimum required rate of return on operating assets is 11% and that performance is evaluated using residual income.

a. Compute East Division’s residual income for last year; also compute the residual income as it would appear if the new product line were added.

Residual income - Present, New Line, Total?

b. Under these circumstances, if you were in Grenier’s position, would you accept or reject the new product line?

• Accept

• Reject

3. The following training dataset is “reading email dataset”.

This dataset has four features as follows: author, thread, length, and where to read the mail. According to the features the algorithm has to predict the user’s action whether to read or skip the mail.

Use Naïve Bayes classifier to predict the user’s action (skips or reads) when the author of the mail is known, the thread of the mail is follow up, the length of the mail is short, and where to read the email is home.

1. Write a Python code to implement a naïve Bayesian classifier to predict the user’s action (skips or reads) when the author of the mail is known, the thread of the mail is follow up, the length of the mail is short, and where to read the email is home. (Do not use Scikit-Learn)
2. Use Scikit-Learn to predict the user’s action (skips or reads) when the author of the mail is known, the thread of the mail is follow up, the length of the mail is short, and where to read the email is home.

Hint in authors feature you can use 0, 1 instead of unknown and known. In thread feature you can use 0, 1 instead of follow up and new. In length feature you can use 0, 1 instead of short and long. In where to read feature you can use 0, 1 instead of home, work. In the target you can use 0 instead of skips and 1 instead of reads.