Pricing an en-suite conversion on a care home room by room: the fee premium, the occupancy it buys back, the beds it costs and the months of disruption.
It pays when the converted rooms earn enough extra contribution, from a higher fee and better occupancy, to repay the capex and the weeks the rooms are out of use, and it rarely pays if rooms have to be given up to make the space. On an illustrative 70-bed home, fitting en-suites into 20 rooms at 35,000 each adds 180,700 a year and pays back in 4.3 years; reconfiguring the same 20 rooms into 16 en-suite rooms adds 11,440 and takes 74.1 years.
Worked in full in Senior Living and Healthcare Real Estate by Julian R. Sterling, with every figure reproduced in a free workbook.See the book on Amazon →
Older care homes often have a wing of rooms with shared bathrooms. They are harder to let, especially to self-funders choosing between homes, and they tend to sit at lower occupancy than the rest of the building. The operator or the landlord has two broad options: fit a shower room into each existing room where the room is large enough, or knock rooms together, typically giving up one room in five, to create the space. The arithmetic is the same for both; the outcome is not.
Figures are illustrative, per room and per week unless stated.
| Input | Value |
|---|---|
| Rooms without en-suite, in a 70-bed home | 20 |
| Occupancy of those rooms today / after conversion | 80% / 93% |
| Average weekly fee today | 1,050 |
| Private en-suite premium / share of residents self-funding | 150 / 50% |
| Variable cost per resident a week (food, consumables, variable care) | 250 |
| Option A: in-room fit, rooms kept / capex per room / weeks out | 20 / 35,000 / 6 |
| Option B: reconfigure, rooms after / capex per room / weeks out | 16 / 45,000 / 10 |
1. The new average fee. The premium is paid only by self-funders; local authority rates do not move for an en-suite. Half of 150 is an average uplift of 75, so the fee goes from 1,050 to 1,125. For how the mix of payors moves an average fee, see how payor mix changes a care home's average fee.
2. Contribution before and after.
Contribution = rooms × occupancy × (fee − variable cost) × 52
Today: 20 × 80% × 800 × 52 = 665,600
A: 20 × 93% × 875 × 52 = 846,300, a gain of 180,700
B: 16 × 93% × 875 × 52 = 677,040, a gain of 11,440
Excel: =Rooms*Occ*(Fee+Prem*Self-Var)*52-Base
3. The cost. Capex plus the contribution lost while rooms are out of use, at today's occupancy and fee.
| Measure | A: in-room fit | B: reconfigure |
|---|---|---|
| Rooms after works | 20 | 16 |
| Residents at 93% | 18.60 | 14.88 |
| Annual contribution gain | 180,700 | 11,440 |
| Capex | 700,000 | 720,000 |
| Contribution lost during works | 76,800 | 128,000 |
| Total cost | 776,800 | 848,000 |
| Simple payback | 4.3 years | 74.1 years |
| Gain capitalised at 9.0x, less cost | 849,500 | -745,040 |
Option B fails because losing four rooms cancels almost all of the fee and occupancy gain: it houses 14.88 residents against 16.0 today and 18.60 under option A, a loss of 3.72. Sixteen rooms need 91.4 per cent occupancy just to match what twenty earn today at 80; twenty en-suite rooms would match it at 73.1 per cent.
The comparison above assumes the shared-bathroom rooms stay at 80 per cent if nothing is done. In practice they tend to drift as self-funders choose newer homes and commissioners raise their expectations. If they would fall to 70 per cent, doing nothing loses 83,200 a year, and the case changes:
The do-nothing case is the one most often left out of a capex paper. A conversion that looks marginal against today's income can be defensive capex that protects it.
| Private premium | 88% occupancy | 93% occupancy | 97% occupancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | 112,320 | -43,264 | 156,520 | -7,904 | 191,880 | 20,384 |
| 150 | 135,200 | -24,960 | 180,700 | 11,440 | 217,100 | 40,560 |
| 200 | 158,080 | -6,656 | 204,880 | 30,784 | 242,320 | 60,736 |
Option A is positive everywhere in the grid, and its gain is driven mainly by occupancy. Option B is negative at 88 per cent occupancy whatever the premium, and even at 97 per cent occupancy and a 200 premium its 60,736 a year would not repay its 848,000 cost in a decade.
Applying the premium to every resident. If the full 150 were charged across all residents, option B's gain would look several times larger. It is earned only on self-funders, so the payor mix of the converted wing, not of the home, sets the uplift. The second mistake is counting the capex but not the weeks out: here they add 11 per cent to the cost of A and 18 per cent to B.
The book underwrites one home from the fee card through payor mix to value, and the free workbook for this case builds occupancy and payor mix from the admissions that produce them.
Only what the payors who pay it are charged. Local authority rates rarely move for an en-suite, so the premium is earned on self-funders. In the illustrative home a 150 a week private premium with half the residents self-funding lifts the average fee by 75, from 1,050 to 1,125 a week.
Because fewer rooms must carry the same income. In the illustrative case 20 rooms at 80 per cent hold 16.0 residents; 16 en-suite rooms at 93 per cent hold 14.88. The higher fee barely offsets the lost residents, and the 16 rooms need 91.4 per cent occupancy just to equal today's contribution of 665,600 a year.
Then the comparison is against a falling base, not today's. If the illustrative rooms would drift from 80 to 70 per cent without works, doing nothing loses 83,200 a year; the in-room conversion then gains 263,900 a year and pays back in 2.9 years, and even the reconfiguration roughly breaks even on value.
This article is one calculation from Senior Living and Healthcare Real Estate. The book takes the same case from first principles to the decision, chapter by chapter, and every figure it prints is a live formula in the free companion workbooks.
Get the book on Amazon →Free companion files
Also on Amazon UK · Amazon Germany · Amazon France · Amazon Canada
Reading guide: real estate investing, finance and fund management → · All 1340 articles →
If this book helped, or didn’t, a few lines on Amazon are worth more than they look: they are what the next reader goes on. Write a review. The workbook stays free either way.