ML Analysis — KULA HOSPITAL
CCN 121308 | 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.
41
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health3/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility5/15
Operational Efficiency8/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-41.5%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-69.8%, -13.2%]. P8 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 4435469.667 | -0.3423 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 2590801.222 | +0.1412 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.147 | -0.0753 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.448 | -0.0709 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.197 | -0.0506 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 5%Low turnaround probability (5%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.4M
RCM Opportunity
C
Opportunity Grade
-44.0%
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 | 0.276 | +0.231 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.260 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.606 | +0.106 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 2590801.222 | -0.060 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 9.000 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.4M
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: -44.0%
Grade: C
Comps: 483
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.276 | 0.441 | 16.5% | $1.1M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.606 | 0.721 | 11.5% | $313K | 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. |