ML Analysis — SSH - WICHITA INC.
CCN 172007 | 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.
37
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
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)
-15.0%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -2.8%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.3%, 13.3%]. P28 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 494380.562 | -0.1514 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 508199.167 | +0.1415 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.177 | -0.0972 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.088 | +0.0328 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.131 | -0.0266 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.8M
RCM Opportunity
C
Opportunity Grade
4.6%
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 | 0.801 | -0.256 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.332 | +0.001 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.131 | -0.106 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 494380.562 | +0.064 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 48.000 | -0.013 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.8M
Current margin: -2.8%
Projected margin: 4.6%
Grade: C
Comps: 73
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 | 0.131 | 0.763 | 63.2% | $1.8M | 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. |