ML Analysis — EAST LA STATE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM
CCN 194008 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Hold / Selective — investigate specific opportunities but be prepared for execution risk.
46
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health3/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility11/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-20.1%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-48.4%, 8.2%]. P21 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.990 | -0.2269 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Revenue/Bed | 360.784 | -0.2204 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 529173.916 | +0.1390 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 1.000 | +0.0708 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Occupancy × Net-to-Gross | 0.989 | +0.0598 | Higher Occupancy × Net-to-Gross increases predicte |
Turnaround: 20%Low turnaround probability (20%). Structural disadvantages in Reimbursement Quality and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$0
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-50.0%
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 | 0.988 | -0.430 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.010 | -0.054 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 1.000 | +0.281 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 360.784 | +0.093 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 334.000 | +0.025 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $0
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: -50.0%
Grade: D
Comps: 24
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|
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. |