ML Analysis — REHABILIATION HOSPITAL OF NAPLES
CCN 103054 | 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.
46
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health9/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position10/20
Demand Defensibility5/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
2.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -3.3%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-26.1%, 30.6%]. P68 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 98739.840 | -0.2067 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 101955.840 | +0.1916 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.032 | +0.0578 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.660 | +0.0326 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 60037.895 | -0.0270 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 54%Turnaround possible (54%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$8.0M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
157.8%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
FL distress rate: 30.3%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.660 | +0.130 | ▲ risk |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.608 | -0.077 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.740 | +0.071 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 98739.840 | +0.087 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 50.000 | -0.013 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $8.0M
Current margin: -3.3%
Projected margin: 157.8%
Grade: A
Comps: 95
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 | 0.260 | 0.700 | 43.9% | $6.6M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.608 | 0.815 | 20.7% | $1.4M | 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. |