ML Analysis — NOLAND HOSPITAL MONTGOMERY II
CCN 012007 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Speculative — only pursue if turnaround thesis is strong and entry multiple reflects risk.
38
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility8/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-15.1%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -46.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.4%, 13.2%]. P27 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 61402.431 | -0.2119 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 90050.200 | +0.1931 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.085 | -0.0292 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 8917.635 | -0.0287 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Occupancy | 0.145 | -0.0216 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.7M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
46.0%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
AL distress rate: 58.3%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.145 | +0.353 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.428 | +0.017 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 61402.431 | +0.090 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.318 | -0.022 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 65.000 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.7M
Current margin: -46.7%
Projected margin: 46.0%
Grade: A
Comps: 54
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.145 | 0.579 | 43.3% | $2.9M | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.572 | 0.622 | 5.0% | $746K | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.318 | 0.517 | 19.8% | $92K | 65% | 18mo |
Predicted RCM Performance (Public Data Only)
B
RCM Grade
Average RCM profile — some improvement opportunities. Standard diligence scope recommended.
| Metric | Predicted | 90% CI | Percentile | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denial Rate | 25.0% | [2.0%, 25.0%] | P83 | Below average — denial rate suggests RCM improvement opportu |
| Days in AR | 75.0 | [25.0, 75.0] | P83 | Below average — days in ar suggests RCM improvement opportun |
| Clean Claim Rate | 98.0% | [80.0%, 98.0%] | P0 | Strong — predicted clean claim rate is in the top third. |
| Net Collection Rate | 99.5% | [90.0%, 99.5%] | P8 | Strong — predicted net collection rate is in the top third. |