ML Analysis — SUTTER PACIFIC KAHI MOHALA HOSP
CCN 124001 | 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.
32
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health1/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility4/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-24.0%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -24.4%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-52.3%, 4.3%]. P17 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 232477.954 | -0.1880 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 289139.614 | +0.1685 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.147 | -0.0753 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.404 | -0.0582 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 45547.440 | -0.0275 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 16%Low turnaround probability (16%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.6M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
-6.9%
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 | 0.196 | +0.306 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 232477.955 | +0.080 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.136 | +0.047 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.467 | +0.044 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 88.000 | -0.008 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.6M
Current margin: -24.4%
Projected margin: -6.9%
Grade: A
Comps: 2164
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.196 | 0.739 | 54.3% | $3.6M | 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. |