ML Analysis — GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL-BAKERSFIELD
CCN 050257 | 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.
34
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health3/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-11.4%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -9.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-39.7%, 16.9%]. P34 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 816021.419 | -0.1065 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 896510.605 | +0.0937 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.341 | -0.0400 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 328332.288 | -0.0181 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Bed Count | 43.000 | +0.0165 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 31%Turnaround possible (31%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.1M
RCM Opportunity
C
Opportunity Grade
-3.8%
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 | 0.402 | +0.114 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.224 | -0.018 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 816021.419 | +0.045 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.439 | +0.031 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 43.000 | -0.014 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.1M
Current margin: -9.9%
Projected margin: -3.8%
Grade: C
Comps: 97
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.402 | 0.712 | 30.9% | $2.0M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.439 | 0.464 | 2.5% | $102K | 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. |