ML Analysis — EASTERN PLUMAS HEALTH CARE
CCN 051300 | 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.
44
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health7/25
RCM Upside17/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility3/15
Operational Efficiency10/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
1.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -0.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-27.0%, 29.6%]. P65 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 4204881.222 | +0.3665 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 4235582.444 | -0.3176 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.197 | -0.0506 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.816 | +0.0502 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 9.000 | +0.0218 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 52%Turnaround possible (52%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$10.1M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
26.0%
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 | 0.245 | +0.260 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.825 | +0.085 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.816 | +0.199 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 4204881.222 | -0.155 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 9.000 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $10.1M
Current margin: -0.7%
Projected margin: 26.0%
Grade: A
Comps: 21
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.175 | 0.631 | 45.5% | $6.8M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.245 | 0.707 | 46.2% | $3.1M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.816 | 0.870 | 5.4% | $239K | 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. |