ML Analysis — COLUMBUS SPECIATLY HOSPITAL
CCN 112012 | 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 Health3/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-7.9%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -9.5%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-36.2%, 20.4%]. P42 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 343132.625 | -0.1726 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 375761.250 | +0.1579 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.178 | -0.0278 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 204351.930 | -0.0222 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.269 | -0.0195 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m |
Turnaround: 36%Turnaround possible (36%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.4M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
7.4%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
GA distress rate: 44.4%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.596 | -0.065 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.432 | +0.018 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 343132.625 | +0.073 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.474 | +0.047 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 24.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.4M
Current margin: -9.5%
Projected margin: 7.4%
Grade: A
Comps: 54
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 | 0.568 | 0.658 | 9.1% | $1.4M | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.474 | 0.507 | 3.2% | $31K | 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. |