πŸ›‘οΈ Public data only β€” no PHI permitted on this instance.
SC
SeekingChartis
CCN 050042 | CA | 49 beds | Current EBITDA $5.6M β†’ Pro Forma $14.0M (+$8.4M)
$159.2M
Net Revenue HCRIS
$5.6M
Current EBITDA COMPUTED
+$8.4M
RCM EBITDA Uplift
$14.0M
Pro Forma EBITDA
+526bps
Margin Improvement
$6.1M
WC Released (1x)

Bridge Realization Estimate

ML model predicts what fraction of the bridge is achievable (accuracy: 60%, n=5,839)

72%
Realization (B)
$8.4M
Modeled Uplift
$6.0M
Risk-Adjusted
-$2.3M
Execution Discount
Revenue per BedHigher Revenue per Bed increases execution likelih
Occupancy RateHigher Occupancy Rate increases execution likeliho
Bed CountHigher Bed Count increases execution likelihood
Net-to-Gross RatioNet-to-Gross Ratio has minimal effect on execution
Payer DiversityPayer Diversity has minimal effect on execution

Expected realization: 72% of modeled bridge. Strengths: Revenue per Bed, Occupancy Rate. Risk-adjusted uplift: $6.0M (vs $8.4M modeled).

EBITDA Bridge β€” 7 RCM Levers

Each bar shows the annual EBITDA impact at full run-rate. Revenue levers increase top-line; cost levers reduce operating expense; cash acceleration releases working capital. Calibrated to published research bands (Denial 12%β†’5% = $8-15M on $400M NPR).

Cost to Collect
Cost Savings | 12mo ramp
$3.2M
+200bp
Denial Rate Reduction
Revenue | 12mo ramp
$3.2M
+198bp
A/R Days Reduction
Cash Accel | 9mo ramp
$1.9M
+122bp
Clean Claim Rate
Cost Savings | 6mo ramp
$102K
+6bp
Total EBITDA Impact$8.4M

Lever Detail

Each value shows its data source. SELLER = seller data room, DEFAULT = model default, BENCHMARK = P75 peer benchmark.

LeverCurrentTargetRevenueCostEBITDAWCRamp
Cost to Collect4.5% DEFAULT2.5% BENCHMARK$0$3.2M$3.2M$012mo
Denial Rate Reduction12.0% DEFAULT6.5% BENCHMARK$3.1M$88K$3.2M$012mo
A/R Days Reduction52.00 DEFAULT38.00 BENCHMARK$488K$1.4M$1.9M$6.1M9mo
Clean Claim Rate88.0% DEFAULT96.0% BENCHMARK$0$102K$102K$06mo
Net Collection Rate93.5% DEFAULT47.8% BENCHMARK$0$0$0$018mo
CDI / Case Mix Index135.0% DEFAULT142.0% BENCHMARK$0$0$0$018mo

Implementation Timing Curve

Linear ramp to full run-rate per lever. Month 0 = close date. Partners should expect 60-70% of total uplift realized by month 12.

LeverM0M3M6M9M12M18M24M36
Cost to Collect$0$796K$1.6M$2.4M$3.2M$3.2M$3.2M$3.2M
Denial Rate Reduction$0$788K$1.6M$2.4M$3.2M$3.2M$3.2M$3.2M
A/R Days Reduction$0$646K$1.3M$1.9M$1.9M$1.9M$1.9M$1.9M
Clean Claim Rate$0$51K$102K$102K$102K$102K$102K$102K
Cumulative$0$2.3M$4.6M$6.8M$8.4M$8.4M$8.4M$8.4M

Returns Sensitivity (IRR / MOIC)

5-year hold, 5.5x leverage, 3% organic growth, 10%/yr debt paydown. Green = exceeds 20% IRR hurdle. Amber = 15-20%. Red = below hurdle or loss. RCM uplift of $8.4M is added at exit.

Entry \ Exit9.0x10.0x11.0x11.5x12.0x
8.0x75% / 16.2x79% / 18.4x83% / 20.5x85% / 21.6x87% / 22.7x
9.0x70% / 14.0x74% / 16.0x78% / 17.9x80% / 18.8x82% / 19.8x
10.0x65% / 12.3x70% / 14.0x74% / 15.8x75% / 16.6x77% / 17.5x
11.0x61% / 10.9x66% / 12.5x70% / 14.0x71% / 14.8x73% / 15.6x
12.0x58% / 9.7x62% / 11.2x66% / 12.6x68% / 13.3x70% / 14.0x

Covenant Headroom (at 10x Entry, 6.5x Max Leverage)

8.5x
Entry Leverage
3.4x
Pro Forma Leverage
3.1x
Headroom (turns)
48%
EBITDA Cushion

Pro forma EBITDA can decline 48% before the 6.5x covenant trips. RCM uplift reduces leverage from 8.5x to 3.4x, adding 5.1 turns of cushion.

5-Year Value Creation Waterfall

EBITDA trajectory: 3% organic growth + RCM uplift ramp (full run-rate at month 18).

Base EBITDARCM UpliftTotalMargin
Entry$5.6Mβ€”$5.6M3.5%
Year 1$5.7M+$5.6M$11.3M7.1%
Year 2$5.9M+$8.4M$14.3M9.0%
Year 3$6.1M+$8.4M$14.5M9.1%
Year 4$6.3M+$8.4M$14.7M9.2%
Year 5$6.5M+$8.4M$14.8M9.3%
$55.8M
Entry EV (10x)
$163.3M
Exit EV (11x)
$107.5M
Value Created
$14.8M
Exit EBITDA
$8.9M
Organic Growth
$83.7M
RCM Value Creation
$14.8M
Multiple Expansion

Achievement Sensitivity

What if we only achieve a fraction of each lever? 50% = conservative, 75% = base management case, 100% = plan, 120% = stretch.

Lever50%75%100%120%
Cost to Collect$1.6M$2.4M$3.2M$3.8M
Denial Rate Reductio$1.6M$2.4M$3.2M$3.8M
A/R Days Reduction$968K$1.5M$1.9M$2.3M
Clean Claim Rate$51K$76K$102K$122K
Total$4.2M$6.3M$8.4M$10.0M

Peer Context β€” Where This Hospital Sits

Key metrics vs 103 size-matched peers. Low percentile on margin/efficiency metrics = more room for improvement = larger bridge opportunity.

MetricHospitalP25P50P75Percentile
Op Margin3.5%-18.2%-4.8%1.8%
P77
Net-to-Gross25.2%22.9%30.7%47.8%
P28
Occupancy57.0%38.5%56.9%72.4%
P51
Rev/Bed$3.2M$500K$994K$2.6M
P83
Exp/Bed$3.1M$540K$1.3M$2.8M
P79

Bridge Methodology

Coefficients calibrated to published research bands: denial 12%β†’5% = $8-15M on $400M NPR. Current metrics estimated from HCRIS public data and ML predictions. Target metrics set at P75 peer benchmarks with 60% gap closure assumption. Revenue levers use NPR Γ— delta Γ— avoidable share. Cost levers use claims volume Γ— cost per reworked claim. Working capital from AR reduction is one-time cash (not included in recurring EBITDA). Returns assume 5.5x leverage, 3% organic growth, 10%/yr debt paydown.

📄 Download ExcelValue TrackerFund LearningHospital ProfileML AnalysisPE ReturnsDCFLBO ModelDeal Screener
Data: HCRIS FY2022 | 6,123 hospitalsSources: HCRISML