ML Analysis — SAMUEL MAHELONA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
CCN 121306 | 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.
36
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health0/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility3/15
Operational Efficiency10/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-36.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -28.5%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-64.5%, -7.9%]. P10 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 7711679.000 | -0.7459 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 6000882.800 | +0.6172 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.147 | -0.0753 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 1.609 | -0.0642 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Occupancy | 0.031 | -0.0281 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 7%Low turnaround probability (7%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$5.6M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
-9.9%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
HI distress rate: 68.0%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.031 | +0.459 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.544 | +0.037 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 6000882.800 | -0.261 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.537 | +0.075 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 5.000 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $5.6M
Current margin: -28.5%
Projected margin: -9.9%
Grade: A
Comps: 50
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 | 0.456 | 0.658 | 20.2% | $3.0M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.031 | 0.376 | 34.5% | $2.3M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.537 | 0.621 | 8.4% | $296K | 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. |