ML Analysis — MIAMI JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEMS INC.
CCN 100277 | 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 Position4/20
Demand Defensibility5/15
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)
-19.9%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-48.2%, 8.4%]. P21 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.514 | -0.0900 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1143069.156 | -0.0609 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.032 | +0.0578 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.768 | +0.0448 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 1913421.719 | -0.0316 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 20%Low turnaround probability (20%). Structural disadvantages in Reimbursement Quality and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$5.2M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
-35.8%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
FL distress rate: 30.3%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.029 | +0.461 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.330 | +0.001 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.768 | +0.178 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1143069.156 | +0.026 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 32.000 | -0.016 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $5.2M
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: -35.8%
Grade: A
Comps: 57
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.029 | 0.815 | 78.5% | $5.2M | 55% | 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. |