ML Analysis — ST. LUKE HOSPITAL
CCN 171356 | 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 Health0/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility3/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-19.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -14.3%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-48.0%, 8.6%]. P21 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State Peer Margin | -0.177 | -0.0972 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.303 | -0.0481 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.624 | +0.0287 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 10.000 | +0.0216 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1431716.800 | -0.0206 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 20%Low turnaround probability (20%). Structural disadvantages in State Peer Margin and Log(Beds).
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.1M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
0.1%
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 | 0.227 | +0.277 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.760 | +0.074 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.624 | +0.114 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 10.000 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1431716.800 | +0.009 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.1M
Current margin: -14.3%
Projected margin: 0.1%
Grade: A
Comps: 41
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.227 | 0.359 | 13.2% | $868K | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.240 | 0.295 | 5.5% | $818K | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.624 | 0.848 | 22.4% | $375K | 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. |