ML Analysis — KANSAS REHABILITATION HOSPITAL A JO
CCN 173025 | 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.
40
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility7/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-14.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -2.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-42.6%, 14.0%]. P29 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 329401.263 | -0.1745 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 336072.456 | +0.1627 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.177 | -0.0972 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.600 | +0.0259 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 211336.124 | -0.0220 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 27%Low turnaround probability (27%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.7M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
12.4%
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 | 0.642 | -0.108 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.609 | +0.048 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.600 | +0.103 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 329401.263 | +0.074 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 57.000 | -0.012 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.7M
Current margin: -2.0%
Projected margin: 12.4%
Grade: A
Comps: 38
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 | 0.391 | 0.572 | 18.1% | $2.7M | 50% | 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. |