ML Analysis — VIBRA SPECIALTY HOSP PORTLAND
CCN 382004 | 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.
38
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-10.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -33.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-38.6%, 18.0%]. P37 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 410576.356 | -0.1631 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 546563.000 | +0.1368 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.081 | -0.0264 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.162 | -0.0232 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.125 | +0.0220 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m |
Turnaround: 33%Turnaround possible (33%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.4M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-28.6%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
OR distress rate: 65.0%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.691 | -0.154 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.228 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.162 | -0.092 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 410576.356 | +0.069 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 73.000 | -0.010 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.4M
Current margin: -33.1%
Projected margin: -28.6%
Grade: D
Comps: 19
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.162 | 0.438 | 27.6% | $966K | 65% | 18mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.691 | 0.750 | 5.9% | $388K | 55% | 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. |