ML Analysis — KINDRED HOSPITAL BAY AREA
CCN 102009 | 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.
45
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health7/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility12/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-0.4%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -9.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-28.7%, 27.9%]. P61 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 466564.571 | -0.1553 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 509170.617 | +0.1414 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.032 | +0.0578 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.113 | +0.0256 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.164 | -0.0229 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 49%Turnaround possible (49%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.0M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-4.2%
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 | 0.635 | -0.102 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.314 | -0.002 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.164 | -0.091 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 466564.571 | +0.066 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 133.000 | -0.002 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.0M
Current margin: -9.1%
Projected margin: -4.2%
Grade: D
Comps: 121
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 | 0.164 | 0.322 | 15.8% | $1.1M | 65% | 18mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.686 | 0.759 | 7.3% | $1.1M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.635 | 0.754 | 11.9% | $783K | 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. |