ML Analysis — ROOSEVELT GENERAL HOSPITAL
CCN 320084 | 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.
45
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency8/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-16.8%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -25.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-45.1%, 11.5%]. P25 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 3799327.333 | -0.2639 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 3036318.000 | +0.2034 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.485 | -0.0439 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 12.000 | +0.0213 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin | |
| Occupancy | 0.152 | -0.0212 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 23%Low turnaround probability (23%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.7M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
-14.9%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
NM distress rate: 41.7%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.152 | +0.346 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.402 | +0.013 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 3036318.000 | -0.086 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 12.000 | -0.018 | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.345 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.7M
Current margin: -25.1%
Projected margin: -14.9%
Grade: B
Comps: 866
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.152 | 0.457 | 30.4% | $2.0M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.345 | 0.682 | 33.7% | $1.4M | 65% | 18mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.598 | 0.616 | 1.8% | $263K | 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. |