πŸ›‘οΈ Public data only β€” no PHI permitted on this instance.
SC
SeekingChartis
CCN 390147 | PA | 184 beds | Current EBITDA $-15.2M β†’ Pro Forma $-9.2M (+$6.0M)
$113.8M
Net Revenue HCRIS
$-15.2M
Current EBITDA COMPUTED
+$6.0M
RCM EBITDA Uplift
$-9.2M
Pro Forma EBITDA
+526bps
Margin Improvement
$4.4M
WC Released (1x)

Bridge Realization Estimate

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

61%
Realization (C)
$6.0M
Modeled Uplift
$3.7M
Risk-Adjusted
-$2.3M
Execution Discount
Occupancy RateLower Occupancy Rate reduces execution likelihood
Commercial Payer %Higher Commercial Payer % reduces execution likeli
Payer DiversityHigher Payer Diversity increases execution likelih
Revenue per BedLower Revenue per Bed reduces execution likelihood
Bed CountBed Count has minimal effect on execution

Expected realization: 61% of modeled bridge. Strengths: Payer Diversity. Risks: Occupancy Rate, Commercial Payer %. Risk-adjusted uplift: $3.7M (vs $6.0M 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
$2.3M
+200bp
Denial Rate Reduction
Revenue | 12mo ramp
$2.3M
+198bp
A/R Days Reduction
Cash Accel | 9mo ramp
$1.4M
+122bp
Clean Claim Rate
Cost Savings | 6mo ramp
$73K
+6bp
Total EBITDA Impact$6.0M

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$2.3M$2.3M$012mo
Denial Rate Reduction12.0% DEFAULT6.5% BENCHMARK$2.2M$63K$2.3M$012mo
A/R Days Reduction52.00 DEFAULT38.00 BENCHMARK$349K$1.0M$1.4M$4.4M9mo
Clean Claim Rate88.0% DEFAULT96.0% BENCHMARK$0$73K$73K$06mo
Net Collection Rate93.5% DEFAULT30.7% 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$569K$1.1M$1.7M$2.3M$2.3M$2.3M$2.3M
Denial Rate Reduction$0$563K$1.1M$1.7M$2.3M$2.3M$2.3M$2.3M
A/R Days Reduction$0$462K$923K$1.4M$1.4M$1.4M$1.4M$1.4M
Clean Claim Rate$0$36K$73K$73K$73K$73K$73K$73K
Cumulative$0$1.6M$3.3M$4.9M$6.0M$6.0M$6.0M$6.0M

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 $6.0M 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$-15.2Mβ€”$-15.2M-13.4%
Year 1$-15.7M+$4.0M$-11.7M-10.2%
Year 2$-16.1M+$6.0M$-10.1M-8.9%
Year 3$-16.6M+$6.0M$-10.6M-9.3%
Year 4$-17.1M+$6.0M$-11.1M-9.8%
Year 5$-17.6M+$6.0M$-11.6M-10.2%
$-152.0M
Entry EV (10x)
$-127.9M
Exit EV (11x)
$24.0M
Value Created
$-11.6M
Exit EBITDA
$-24.2M
Organic Growth
$59.9M
RCM Value Creation
$-11.6M
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$1.1M$1.7M$2.3M$2.7M
Denial Rate Reductio$1.1M$1.7M$2.3M$2.7M
A/R Days Reduction$692K$1.0M$1.4M$1.7M
Clean Claim Rate$36K$55K$73K$87K
Total$3.0M$4.5M$6.0M$7.2M

Peer Context β€” Where This Hospital Sits

Key metrics vs 101 size-matched peers. Low percentile on margin/efficiency metrics = more room for improvement = larger bridge opportunity.

MetricHospitalP25P50P75Percentile
Op Margin-13.4%-18.5%-7.6%2.4%
P35
Net-to-Gross28.0%16.6%23.1%30.7%
P69
Occupancy29.9%47.7%59.9%75.8%
P7
Rev/Bed$619K$613K$1.1M$1.6M
P25
Exp/Bed$701K$642K$1.2M$1.7M
P28

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