ML Analysis — HAZEL HAWKINS MEM. HOSPITAL
CCN 051337 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Hold / Selective — investigate specific opportunities but be prepared for execution risk.
55
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health8/25
RCM Upside21/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency8/15
Entry Multiple: 9.5x – 11.5x
Est. MOIC: 2.3x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
2.8%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -16.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-25.5%, 31.1%]. P69 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 6585083.480 | -0.6071 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 5642299.600 | +0.5672 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 4342561.106 | +0.1151 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.219 | -0.0268 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 25.000 | +0.0193 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 55%Turnaround possible (55%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.5M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-13.5%
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 | 0.770 | -0.227 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.347 | +0.004 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 5642299.600 | -0.240 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 25.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.343 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.5M
Current margin: -16.7%
Projected margin: -13.5%
Grade: D
Comps: 71
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 | 0.343 | 0.614 | 27.1% | $4.5M | 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. |