ML Analysis — AVAIL HOSPITAL LAKE CHARLES
CCN 190315 | 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 Health4/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility4/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-17.1%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -45.5%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-45.4%, 11.2%]. P24 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 1114141.600 | -0.0649 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.303 | -0.0481 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.071 | +0.0376 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.101 | -0.0301 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 209702.816 | -0.0220 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 23%Low turnaround probability (23%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Log(Beds).
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.7M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
-3.0%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
LA distress rate: 46.3%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.188 | +0.313 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.295 | -0.005 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.100 | -0.119 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1114141.600 | +0.027 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 10.000 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.7M
Current margin: -45.5%
Projected margin: -3.0%
Grade: A
Comps: 36
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.188 | 0.795 | 60.6% | $4.0M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.100 | 0.668 | 56.7% | $739K | 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. |