πŸ›‘οΈ Public data only β€” no PHI permitted on this instance.
SC
SeekingChartis
CCN 140137 | IL | 28 beds | Current EBITDA $-4.0M β†’ Pro Forma $-2.7M (+$1.3M)
$25.0M
Net Revenue HCRIS
$-4.0M
Current EBITDA COMPUTED
+$1.3M
RCM EBITDA Uplift
$-2.7M
Pro Forma EBITDA
+526bps
Margin Improvement
$958K
WC Released (1x)

Bridge Realization Estimate

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

62%
Realization (C)
$1.3M
Modeled Uplift
$810K
Risk-Adjusted
-$504K
Execution Discount
Occupancy RateLower Occupancy Rate reduces execution likelihood
Bed CountHigher Bed Count increases execution likelihood
Revenue per BedLower Revenue per Bed reduces execution likelihood
Commercial Payer %Higher Commercial Payer % increases execution like
Net-to-Gross RatioNet-to-Gross Ratio has minimal effect on execution

Expected realization: 62% of modeled bridge. Strengths: Bed Count, Commercial Payer %. Risks: Occupancy Rate, Revenue per Bed. Risk-adjusted uplift: $0.8M (vs $1.3M 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
$499K
+200bp
Denial Rate Reduction
Revenue | 12mo ramp
$494K
+198bp
A/R Days Reduction
Cash Accel | 9mo ramp
$304K
+122bp
Clean Claim Rate
Cost Savings | 6mo ramp
$16K
+6bp
Total EBITDA Impact$1.3M

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$499K$499K$012mo
Denial Rate Reduction12.0% DEFAULT6.5% BENCHMARK$481K$14K$494K$012mo
A/R Days Reduction52.00 DEFAULT38.00 BENCHMARK$77K$227K$304K$958K9mo
Clean Claim Rate88.0% DEFAULT96.0% BENCHMARK$0$16K$16K$06mo
Net Collection Rate93.5% DEFAULT48.9% 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$125K$250K$374K$499K$499K$499K$499K
Denial Rate Reduction$0$124K$247K$371K$494K$494K$494K$494K
A/R Days Reduction$0$101K$203K$304K$304K$304K$304K$304K
Clean Claim Rate$0$8K$16K$16K$16K$16K$16K$16K
Cumulative$0$358K$715K$1.1M$1.3M$1.3M$1.3M$1.3M

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 $1.3M is added at exit.

Entry \ Exit9.0x10.0x11.0x11.5x12.0x
8.0xLossLossLossLossLoss
9.0xLossLossLossLossLoss
10.0xLossLossLossLossLoss
11.0xLossLossLossLossLoss
12.0xLossLossLossLossLoss

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

99.0x
Entry Leverage
99.0x
Pro Forma Leverage
-92.5x
Headroom (turns)
0%
EBITDA Cushion

Pro forma EBITDA can decline 0% before the 6.5x covenant trips. RCM uplift reduces leverage from 99.0x to 99.0x, adding 0.0 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$-4.0Mβ€”$-4.0M-16.1%
Year 1$-4.1M+$876K$-3.3M-13.0%
Year 2$-4.3M+$1.3M$-2.9M-11.8%
Year 3$-4.4M+$1.3M$-3.1M-12.3%
Year 4$-4.5M+$1.3M$-3.2M-12.8%
Year 5$-4.7M+$1.3M$-3.3M-13.4%
$-40.1M
Entry EV (10x)
$-36.7M
Exit EV (11x)
$3.4M
Value Created
$-3.3M
Exit EBITDA
$-6.4M
Organic Growth
$13.1M
RCM Value Creation
$-3.3M
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$250K$374K$499K$599K
Denial Rate Reductio$247K$371K$494K$593K
A/R Days Reduction$152K$228K$304K$365K
Clean Claim Rate$8K$12K$16K$19K
Total$657K$985K$1.3M$1.6M

Peer Context β€” Where This Hospital Sits

Key metrics vs 76 size-matched peers. Low percentile on margin/efficiency metrics = more room for improvement = larger bridge opportunity.

MetricHospitalP25P50P75Percentile
Op Margin-16.1%-7.6%-2.2%4.4%
P14
Net-to-Gross33.4%33.6%43.0%48.9%
P23
Occupancy20.7%18.6%27.0%42.3%
P32
Rev/Bed$892K$1.0M$1.5M$2.0M
P19
Exp/Bed$1.0M$1.2M$1.5M$2.0M
P16

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