ML Analysis — NINNESCAH VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS
CCN 171378 | 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.
34
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health1/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility2/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
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)
-19.5%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -21.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-47.8%, 8.8%]. P21 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 601768.280 | -0.1365 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 733261.120 | +0.1138 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.177 | -0.0972 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.088 | +0.0326 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.219 | -0.0268 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 20%Low turnaround probability (20%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$7.6M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
28.5%
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 | 0.170 | +0.330 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.825 | +0.085 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.505 | +0.061 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 601768.280 | +0.058 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 25.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $7.6M
Current margin: -21.9%
Projected margin: 28.5%
Grade: A
Comps: 110
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 | 0.175 | 0.537 | 36.2% | $5.4M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.170 | 0.413 | 24.3% | $1.6M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.505 | 0.815 | 31.0% | $545K | 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. |