ML Analysis — TERENCE CARDINAL COOKE HEALTH CARE
CCN 330410 | 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.
39
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health2/25
RCM Upside21/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility8/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-16.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -10.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-44.6%, 12.0%]. P26 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medicaid % | 0.998 | -0.1100 | Higher Medicaid % decreases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.175 | -0.0960 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.001 | +0.0578 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Expense/Bed | 1962298.804 | -0.0376 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 1740673.817 | +0.0288 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m |
Turnaround: 24%Low turnaround probability (24%). Structural disadvantages in Medicaid % and State Peer Margin.
nan%
Distress Risk
$10.8M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
0.2%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
NY distress rate: 84.9%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.982 | -0.424 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.998 | +0.908 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.399 | +0.014 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 56.000 | -0.012 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1773058.446 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $10.8M
Current margin: -10.7%
Projected margin: 0.2%
Grade: B
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 | 0.002 | 0.720 | 71.8% | $10.8M | 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. |