ML Analysis — NUERODIAGNOSTIC INSTITUTE
CCN 154008 | 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 Health4/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility7/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-12.5%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -38.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-40.8%, 15.8%]. P32 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 184150.019 | -0.1947 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 254409.572 | +0.1728 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Medicaid % | 0.401 | -0.0378 | Higher Medicaid % decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.328 | -0.0363 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 83230.034 | -0.0262 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 29%Low turnaround probability (29%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.4M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
-26.5%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
IN distress rate: 42.0%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.452 | +0.068 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.401 | +0.312 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 184150.019 | +0.082 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.547 | +0.079 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 159.000 | +0.001 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.4M
Current margin: -38.1%
Projected margin: -26.5%
Grade: B
Comps: 47
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 | 0.599 | 0.724 | 12.5% | $1.9M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.452 | 0.684 | 23.2% | $1.5M | 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. |