ML Analysis — KANSAS HEART HOSPITAL
CCN 170186 | 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.
33
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside17/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-17.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -0.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-45.6%, 11.1%]. P24 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Peer Margin | -0.177 | -0.0972 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 893135.717 | -0.0958 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 899183.978 | +0.0934 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 337040.376 | -0.0178 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Bed Count | 46.000 | +0.0160 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 23%Low turnaround probability (23%). Structural disadvantages in State Peer Margin and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$5.0M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
11.4%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
KS distress rate: 76.8%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.377 | +0.137 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.521 | +0.033 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 893135.717 | +0.041 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 46.000 | -0.014 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.339 | -0.013 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $5.0M
Current margin: -0.7%
Projected margin: 11.4%
Grade: B
Comps: 80
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 | 0.339 | 0.765 | 42.6% | $2.0M | 65% | 18mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.479 | 0.595 | 11.7% | $1.7M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.377 | 0.553 | 17.5% | $1.2M | 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. |