ML Analysis — PROVIDENCE LTTL CO MARY MC SAN PEDRO
CCN 050078 | 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.
42
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health7/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-7.5%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -27.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-35.8%, 20.8%]. P43 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 2641246.917 | -0.1212 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 2077636.302 | +0.0696 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.216 | -0.0171 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 1301058.784 | +0.0142 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.162 | +0.0114 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m |
Turnaround: 37%Turnaround possible (37%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.0M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-25.1%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
CA distress rate: 49.7%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.626 | -0.094 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.250 | -0.013 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.216 | -0.068 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 2077636.302 | -0.029 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 96.000 | -0.007 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.0M
Current margin: -27.1%
Projected margin: -25.1%
Grade: D
Comps: 171
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.216 | 0.355 | 13.9% | $3.2M | 65% | 18mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.626 | 0.741 | 11.5% | $758K | 55% | 24mo |
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. |