πŸ›‘οΈ Public data only β€” no PHI permitted on this instance.
SC
SeekingChartis
CCN 452107 | TX | 41 beds | Current EBITDA $456K β†’ Pro Forma $1.5M (+$1.1M)
$20.2M
Net Revenue HCRIS
$456K
Current EBITDA COMPUTED
+$1.1M
RCM EBITDA Uplift
$1.5M
Pro Forma EBITDA
+526bps
Margin Improvement
$775K
WC Released (1x)

Bridge Realization Estimate

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

71%
Realization (B)
$1.1M
Modeled Uplift
$754K
Risk-Adjusted
-$309K
Execution Discount
Occupancy RateHigher Occupancy Rate increases execution likeliho
Revenue per BedLower Revenue per Bed reduces execution likelihood
Bed CountHigher Bed Count increases execution likelihood
Net-to-Gross RatioHigher Net-to-Gross Ratio increases execution like
Commercial Payer %Commercial Payer % has minimal effect on execution

Expected realization: 71% of modeled bridge. Strengths: Occupancy Rate, Bed Count. Risks: Revenue per Bed. Risk-adjusted uplift: $0.8M (vs $1.1M 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
$404K
+200bp
Denial Rate Reduction
Revenue | 12mo ramp
$400K
+198bp
A/R Days Reduction
Cash Accel | 9mo ramp
$246K
+122bp
Clean Claim Rate
Cost Savings | 6mo ramp
$13K
+6bp
Total EBITDA Impact$1.1M

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$404K$404K$012mo
Denial Rate Reduction12.0% DEFAULT6.5% BENCHMARK$389K$11K$400K$012mo
A/R Days Reduction52.00 DEFAULT38.00 BENCHMARK$62K$184K$246K$775K9mo
Clean Claim Rate88.0% DEFAULT96.0% BENCHMARK$0$13K$13K$06mo
Net Collection Rate93.5% DEFAULT50.2% 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$101K$202K$303K$404K$404K$404K$404K
Denial Rate Reduction$0$100K$200K$300K$400K$400K$400K$400K
A/R Days Reduction$0$82K$164K$246K$246K$246K$246K$246K
Clean Claim Rate$0$6K$13K$13K$13K$13K$13K$13K
Cumulative$0$289K$579K$862K$1.1M$1.1M$1.1M$1.1M

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 $1.1M is added at exit.

Entry \ Exit9.0x10.0x11.0x11.5x12.0x
8.0x86% / 22.3x91% / 25.1x95% / 27.9x97% / 29.4x98% / 30.8x
9.0x81% / 19.4x85% / 21.9x90% / 24.5x91% / 25.7x93% / 27.0x
10.0x77% / 17.2x81% / 19.4x85% / 21.7x87% / 22.8x89% / 24.0x
11.0x73% / 15.3x77% / 17.4x81% / 19.4x83% / 20.5x85% / 21.5x
12.0x69% / 13.8x73% / 15.7x77% / 17.5x79% / 18.5x81% / 19.4x

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

8.5x
Entry Leverage
2.5x
Pro Forma Leverage
4.0x
Headroom (turns)
61%
EBITDA Cushion

Pro forma EBITDA can decline 61% before the 6.5x covenant trips. RCM uplift reduces leverage from 8.5x to 2.5x, adding 5.9 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$456Kβ€”$456K2.3%
Year 1$470K+$709K$1.2M5.8%
Year 2$484K+$1.1M$1.5M7.7%
Year 3$499K+$1.1M$1.6M7.7%
Year 4$514K+$1.1M$1.6M7.8%
Year 5$529K+$1.1M$1.6M7.9%
$4.6M
Entry EV (10x)
$17.5M
Exit EV (11x)
$12.9M
Value Created
$1.6M
Exit EBITDA
$727K
Organic Growth
$10.6M
RCM Value Creation
$1.6M
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$202K$303K$404K$485K
Denial Rate Reductio$200K$300K$400K$480K
A/R Days Reduction$123K$184K$246K$295K
Clean Claim Rate$6K$10K$13K$16K
Total$531K$797K$1.1M$1.3M

Peer Context β€” Where This Hospital Sits

Key metrics vs 279 size-matched peers. Low percentile on margin/efficiency metrics = more room for improvement = larger bridge opportunity.

MetricHospitalP25P50P75Percentile
Op Margin2.3%-22.8%-2.6%10.5%
P57
Net-to-Gross13.4%24.4%34.4%50.3%
P5
Occupancy68.8%20.0%44.7%70.5%
P73
Rev/Bed$493K$381K$584K$1.2M
P40
Exp/Bed$482K$402K$622K$1.3M
P40

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