ML Analysis — KINDRED HOSPITAL CENTRAL TAMPA
CCN 102013 | 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.
42
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside19/25
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)
-1.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -13.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-30.0%, 26.6%]. P58 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 379056.814 | -0.1675 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 431888.177 | +0.1509 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.032 | +0.0578 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.101 | +0.0290 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.162 | -0.0231 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 47%Turnaround possible (47%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.6M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
-2.1%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
FL distress rate: 30.3%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.162 | -0.092 | ▼ risk |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.544 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.380 | +0.009 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 379056.814 | +0.071 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 102.000 | -0.006 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.6M
Current margin: -13.9%
Projected margin: -2.1%
Grade: B
Comps: 117
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 | 0.620 | 0.764 | 14.4% | $2.2M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.544 | 0.767 | 22.3% | $1.5M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.162 | 0.371 | 20.9% | $944K | 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. |