πŸ›‘οΈ Public data only β€” no PHI permitted on this instance.
SC
SeekingChartis
CCN 673036 | TX | 44 beds | Current EBITDA $1.7M β†’ Pro Forma $2.9M (+$1.1M)
$21.8M
Net Revenue HCRIS
$1.7M
Current EBITDA COMPUTED
+$1.1M
RCM EBITDA Uplift
$2.9M
Pro Forma EBITDA
+526bps
Margin Improvement
$835K
WC Released (1x)

Bridge Realization Estimate

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

73%
Realization (B)
$1.1M
Modeled Uplift
$840K
Risk-Adjusted
-$306K
Execution Discount
Occupancy RateHigher Occupancy Rate increases execution likeliho
Revenue per BedLower Revenue per Bed reduces execution likelihood
Commercial Payer %Higher Commercial Payer % increases execution like
Bed CountHigher Bed Count increases execution likelihood
Net-to-Gross RatioNet-to-Gross Ratio has minimal effect on execution

Expected realization: 73% of modeled bridge. Strengths: Occupancy Rate, Commercial Payer %. 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
$436K
+200bp
Denial Rate Reduction
Revenue | 12mo ramp
$431K
+198bp
A/R Days Reduction
Cash Accel | 9mo ramp
$265K
+122bp
Clean Claim Rate
Cost Savings | 6mo ramp
$14K
+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$436K$436K$012mo
Denial Rate Reduction12.0% DEFAULT6.5% BENCHMARK$419K$12K$431K$012mo
A/R Days Reduction52.00 DEFAULT38.00 BENCHMARK$67K$198K$265K$835K9mo
Clean Claim Rate88.0% DEFAULT96.0% BENCHMARK$0$14K$14K$06mo
Net Collection Rate93.5% DEFAULT50.8% 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$109K$218K$327K$436K$436K$436K$436K
Denial Rate Reduction$0$108K$216K$323K$431K$431K$431K$431K
A/R Days Reduction$0$88K$177K$265K$265K$265K$265K$265K
Clean Claim Rate$0$7K$14K$14K$14K$14K$14K$14K
Cumulative$0$312K$624K$929K$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
8.0x59% / 10.0x63% / 11.5x67% / 13.0x69% / 13.7x71% / 14.4x
9.0x54% / 8.6x58% / 9.9x62% / 11.2x64% / 11.8x66% / 12.5x
10.0x49% / 7.4x54% / 8.6x58% / 9.7x60% / 10.3x61% / 10.9x
11.0x45% / 6.4x50% / 7.5x54% / 8.6x55% / 9.1x57% / 9.6x
12.0x41% / 5.6x46% / 6.6x50% / 7.6x52% / 8.1x54% / 8.6x

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

8.5x
Entry Leverage
5.1x
Pro Forma Leverage
1.4x
Headroom (turns)
21%
EBITDA Cushion

Pro forma EBITDA can decline 21% before the 6.5x covenant trips. RCM uplift reduces leverage from 8.5x to 5.1x, adding 3.4 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$1.7Mβ€”$1.7M8.0%
Year 1$1.8M+$764K$2.6M11.8%
Year 2$1.9M+$1.1M$3.0M13.8%
Year 3$1.9M+$1.1M$3.1M14.0%
Year 4$2.0M+$1.1M$3.1M14.3%
Year 5$2.0M+$1.1M$3.2M14.6%
$17.5M
Entry EV (10x)
$34.9M
Exit EV (11x)
$17.4M
Value Created
$3.2M
Exit EBITDA
$2.8M
Organic Growth
$11.5M
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$218K$327K$436K$523K
Denial Rate Reductio$216K$323K$431K$517K
A/R Days Reduction$133K$199K$265K$318K
Clean Claim Rate$7K$10K$14K$17K
Total$573K$859K$1.1M$1.4M

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 Margin8.0%-20.8%-2.4%10.7%
P70
Net-to-Gross31.1%24.0%34.0%50.8%
P46
Occupancy75.9%20.9%45.6%71.3%
P79
Rev/Bed$495K$362K$568K$1.2M
P42
Exp/Bed$455K$393K$561K$1.3M
P36

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