ML Analysis — MADONNA REHAB OMAHA LTC HOSPITAL
CCN 282003 | 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.
50
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health9/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency8/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
0.9%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -8.8%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-27.4%, 29.2%]. P64 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 2877635.149 | -0.1503 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 2643977.791 | +0.1486 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 1948575.413 | +0.0357 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.063 | -0.0129 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 67.000 | +0.0127 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 52%Turnaround possible (52%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.3M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-7.5%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
NE distress rate: 53.1%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.737 | -0.197 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.581 | +0.044 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 2643977.791 | -0.063 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.425 | +0.025 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 67.000 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.3M
Current margin: -8.8%
Projected margin: -7.5%
Grade: D
Comps: 18
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 | 0.419 | 0.574 | 15.6% | $2.3M | 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. |