ML Analysis — MOUNTAINS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
CCN 051312 | 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 Health3/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-14.8%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -10.2%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.0%, 13.6%]. P28 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 2032771.706 | -0.0463 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.359 | -0.0453 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1844828.471 | +0.0371 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.833 | -0.0358 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 17.000 | +0.0206 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Reimbursement Quality.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.5M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
0.8%
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 | 0.166 | +0.334 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.325 | -0.000 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.532 | +0.073 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 17.000 | -0.018 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1844828.471 | -0.016 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.5M
Current margin: -10.2%
Projected margin: 0.8%
Grade: B
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 | 0.166 | 0.630 | 46.4% | $3.1M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.532 | 0.638 | 10.6% | $390K | 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. |