How does SeniorCRE run the annual budget and weekly variance review?
Design target · Internal estimate
Re-forecasts in hours, not days
Modeled estimate from SeniorCRE engineering. Not a result: no approved Evidence Record supports it, and business outcomes remain contributory. See Industry Findings for methodology.
Incumbents this workflow touches
Performs in-platform: Annual budget Excel locked in October
Integrates with (Tier 3): Sage Intacct · NetSuite · Adaptive Insights
SeniorCRE does not “replace” the EHR. Where PointClickCare, MatrixCare, Yardi, or OnShift are in place, the workflow runs on top of the existing record via integration.
The problem
The annual budget is built in a spreadsheet, locked in October, and ignored by March. Weekly variance reviews — when they happen — debate which numbers are right rather than what they mean.
How the platform runs it
Budgets are entered per community, per GL account, with driver assumptions (census, ADC, hours per resident day) preserved. Actuals post against budget in real time. Variance review packages generate weekly with the same numbers everyone is looking at — finance, operations, and executives. Re-forecasts apply driver changes without rebuilding the budget.
On the shift
The Wednesday variance review opens with a single package generated from live data: actual versus budget by GL, by community, with the underlying drivers visible. The 7.2% labor variance at Property B is explained by a documented agency-coverage decision the COO made on July 14; the explanation is on the same line as the variance. The re-forecast that the CFO needs to give the board next Tuesday is built by adjusting driver assumptions — census down 3 at one property, wage inflation up 50 bps — and the model recomputes in seconds.
What the outcome looks like
Variance meetings move from arguing about numbers to deciding what to do about them. Re-forecasts that took a week now take an afternoon.
What goes wrong without it
On Excel budgets, every variance meeting begins with debating which numbers are right. Half the time goes to reconciling the operations report to the finance report. By the time the team agrees on the numbers, there is no time left to decide what to do about them. The re-forecast that should take a morning takes a week and is stale the day it is delivered.
Show me the evidence
Operators do not buy claims. They buy proof. If anything on this page reads as aspirational, ask us to walk you through the surface in production for a community at your acuity and payer mix.
Where this connects in the platform
Every financial workflow runs on the same record. These are the feature pages, head-to-head comparisons, and pillar articles that go deeper on the surfaces this workflow touches.
Feature surfaces
Compared head-to-head
Regulatory and accounting references
Financial workflows on this page reflect CMS PDPM and PDGM payment rules, GAAP revenue recognition (ASC 606), and the state Medicaid case-mix programs that drive reimbursement.
- Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) — SNF Payment Methodology
CMS
Component scoring (PT, OT, SLP, Nursing, NTA) and the variable per-diem adjustments that drive Part A revenue.
- Medicaid Case-Mix Reimbursement — RUG-IV and successor systems
Medicaid.gov
State-level case-mix methodology overview; each state files its own State Plan Amendment with rate calculation detail.
- ASC 606 — Revenue from Contracts with Customers
FASB
The GAAP standard for revenue recognition; governs how room-and-board, ancillary, and Medicaid revenue is recognized over the resident stay.
- OIG Compliance Program Guidance for Nursing Facilities
HHS OIG
Federal expectations for billing integrity programs — drives audit-log requirements and segregation of duties around claims.