ML Analysis — UPMC KANE
CCN 390104 | 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.
35
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside17/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility2/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-14.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -4.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.0%, 13.6%]. P28 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 1202225.722 | -0.0526 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 1261047.778 | +0.0488 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.324 | -0.0351 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.890 | -0.0345 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 162126.635 | -0.0236 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.4M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
6.4%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
PA distress rate: 48.1%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.135 | +0.362 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.005 | -0.084 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1202225.722 | +0.022 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.325 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 18.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.4M
Current margin: -4.9%
Projected margin: 6.4%
Grade: B
Comps: 40
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.135 | 0.490 | 35.5% | $2.3M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.325 | 0.364 | 3.9% | $98K | 65% | 18mo |
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. |