πŸ›‘οΈ Public data only β€” no PHI permitted on this instance.
SC
SeekingChartis
CCN 452080 | TX | 80 beds | Current EBITDA $1.1M β†’ Pro Forma $3.0M (+$1.9M)
$36.4M
Net Revenue HCRIS
$1.1M
Current EBITDA COMPUTED
+$1.9M
RCM EBITDA Uplift
$3.0M
Pro Forma EBITDA
+526bps
Margin Improvement
$1.4M
WC Released (1x)

Bridge Realization Estimate

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

66%
Realization (C)
$1.9M
Modeled Uplift
$1.3M
Risk-Adjusted
-$640K
Execution Discount
Revenue per BedLower Revenue per Bed reduces execution likelihood
Net-to-Gross RatioHigher Net-to-Gross Ratio increases execution like
Occupancy RateLower Occupancy Rate reduces execution likelihood
Bed CountBed Count has minimal effect on execution
Payer DiversityPayer Diversity has minimal effect on execution

Expected realization: 67% of modeled bridge. Strengths: Net-to-Gross Ratio. Risks: Revenue per Bed, Occupancy Rate. Risk-adjusted uplift: $1.3M (vs $1.9M 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
$727K
+200bp
Denial Rate Reduction
Revenue | 12mo ramp
$720K
+198bp
A/R Days Reduction
Cash Accel | 9mo ramp
$442K
+122bp
Clean Claim Rate
Cost Savings | 6mo ramp
$23K
+6bp
Total EBITDA Impact$1.9M

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$727K$727K$012mo
Denial Rate Reduction12.0% DEFAULT6.5% BENCHMARK$700K$20K$720K$012mo
A/R Days Reduction52.00 DEFAULT38.00 BENCHMARK$112K$331K$442K$1.4M9mo
Clean Claim Rate88.0% DEFAULT96.0% BENCHMARK$0$23K$23K$06mo
Net Collection Rate93.5% DEFAULT45.9% 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$182K$364K$545K$727K$727K$727K$727K
Denial Rate Reduction$0$180K$360K$540K$720K$720K$720K$720K
A/R Days Reduction$0$147K$295K$442K$442K$442K$442K$442K
Clean Claim Rate$0$12K$23K$23K$23K$23K$23K$23K
Cumulative$0$521K$1.0M$1.6M$1.9M$1.9M$1.9M$1.9M

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 $1.9M is added at exit.

Entry \ Exit9.0x10.0x11.0x11.5x12.0x
8.0x79% / 18.2x83% / 20.6x87% / 22.9x89% / 24.1x91% / 25.3x
9.0x74% / 15.8x78% / 17.9x82% / 20.0x84% / 21.1x86% / 22.1x
10.0x69% / 13.9x74% / 15.8x78% / 17.7x80% / 18.6x81% / 19.6x
11.0x65% / 12.3x70% / 14.1x74% / 15.8x76% / 16.7x77% / 17.5x
12.0x62% / 11.0x66% / 12.6x70% / 14.2x72% / 15.0x74% / 15.8x

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

8.5x
Entry Leverage
3.1x
Pro Forma Leverage
3.4x
Headroom (turns)
53%
EBITDA Cushion

Pro forma EBITDA can decline 53% before the 6.5x covenant trips. RCM uplift reduces leverage from 8.5x to 3.1x, adding 5.4 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$1.1Mβ€”$1.1M3.0%
Year 1$1.1M+$1.3M$2.4M6.6%
Year 2$1.1M+$1.9M$3.1M8.4%
Year 3$1.2M+$1.9M$3.1M8.5%
Year 4$1.2M+$1.9M$3.1M8.6%
Year 5$1.3M+$1.9M$3.2M8.7%
$10.8M
Entry EV (10x)
$34.8M
Exit EV (11x)
$24.0M
Value Created
$3.2M
Exit EBITDA
$1.7M
Organic Growth
$19.1M
RCM Value Creation
$3.2M
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$364K$545K$727K$873K
Denial Rate Reductio$360K$540K$720K$864K
A/R Days Reduction$221K$332K$442K$531K
Clean Claim Rate$12K$17K$23K$28K
Total$956K$1.4M$1.9M$2.3M

Peer Context β€” Where This Hospital Sits

Key metrics vs 224 size-matched peers. Low percentile on margin/efficiency metrics = more room for improvement = larger bridge opportunity.

MetricHospitalP25P50P75Percentile
Op Margin3.0%-12.3%1.8%11.7%
P55
Net-to-Gross13.7%17.5%29.6%45.9%
P13
Occupancy48.4%39.8%57.3%75.0%
P35
Rev/Bed$454K$291K$554K$1.1M
P40
Exp/Bed$441K$309K$489K$1.1M
P41

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