ML Analysis — TAMPA GENERAL REHABILIATION HOSPITAL
CCN 103051 | 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.
38
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility5/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-3.1%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -24.3%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-31.4%, 25.2%]. P54 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 100005.012 | -0.2065 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 124302.375 | +0.1888 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.032 | +0.0578 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 29837.354 | -0.0280 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.523 | +0.0173 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 44%Turnaround possible (44%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$8.5M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
81.9%
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 | 0.298 | +0.211 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.616 | +0.050 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 100005.012 | +0.087 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.523 | +0.069 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 80.000 | -0.009 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $8.5M
Current margin: -24.3%
Projected margin: 81.9%
Grade: A
Comps: 122
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 | 0.384 | 0.742 | 35.8% | $5.4M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.298 | 0.773 | 47.5% | $3.1M | 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. |