ML Analysis — NOLAND HOSPITAL BIRMINGHAM II
CCN 012009 | 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.
36
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside16/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-13.8%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -0.3%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-42.1%, 14.5%]. P30 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 145625.215 | -0.2001 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 146080.848 | +0.1862 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.085 | -0.0292 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 40957.881 | -0.0276 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Occupancy | 0.281 | -0.0139 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 27%Low turnaround probability (27%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.4M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
20.3%
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 | 0.281 | +0.226 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.351 | +0.004 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 145625.215 | +0.085 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 79.000 | -0.009 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.356 | -0.005 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.4M
Current margin: -0.3%
Projected margin: 20.3%
Grade: A
Comps: 43
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.281 | 0.615 | 33.4% | $2.2M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.356 | 0.478 | 12.1% | $163K | 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. |