ML Analysis — MAHASKA HEALTH PARTNERSHIP
CCN 161379 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Hold / Selective — investigate specific opportunities but be prepared for execution risk.
53
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health7/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
Operational Efficiency10/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-3.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -3.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-31.5%, 25.1%]. P54 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 3025907.840 | +0.2019 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 3144019.080 | -0.1832 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 1767130.179 | +0.0297 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases 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: 44%Turnaround possible (44%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$972K
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-2.6%
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 | 0.584 | -0.055 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.453 | +0.022 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 3025907.840 | -0.085 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.507 | +0.062 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 25.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $972K
Current margin: -3.9%
Projected margin: -2.6%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.507 | 0.617 | 11.0% | $972K | 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. |