ML Analysis — JEWISH HOME FOR THE AGED
CCN 054089 | 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.
54
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside21/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency10/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
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)
-20.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -48.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-49.0%, 7.6%]. P20 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 10016797.692 | -1.0298 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 6769205.308 | +0.7245 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 5130044.739 | +0.1412 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.451 | -0.0718 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.870 | +0.0563 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 19%Low turnaround probability (19%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.3M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-46.4%
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 | 0.758 | -0.216 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.482 | +0.027 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 6769205.308 | -0.306 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.870 | +0.224 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 13.000 | -0.018 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.3M
Current margin: -48.0%
Projected margin: -46.4%
Grade: D
Comps: 49
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 | 0.518 | 0.608 | 9.0% | $1.3M | 50% | 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. |