ML Analysis — CHI HEALTH - MISSOURI VALLEY
CCN 161309 | 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 Health5/25
RCM Upside16/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility7/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
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
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-13.0%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -0.2%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-41.3%, 15.3%]. P31 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 1245161.880 | +0.0508 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1242378.400 | -0.0470 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.325 | -0.0355 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.082 | -0.0269 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.219 | -0.0268 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 29%Low turnaround probability (29%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$589K
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
1.7%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
IA distress rate: 67.2%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.266 | +0.241 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.430 | +0.018 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.570 | +0.090 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1242378.400 | +0.020 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 25.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $589K
Current margin: -0.2%
Projected margin: 1.7%
Grade: D
Comps: 93
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.266 | 0.330 | 6.4% | $420K | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.570 | 0.617 | 4.6% | $169K | 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. |