ML Analysis — MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL INC.
CCN 390147 | 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 Health5/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Limited competition supports pricing power
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-11.1%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -13.4%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-39.4%, 17.2%]. P35 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 618522.636 | -0.1341 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 701110.842 | +0.1178 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 184925.236 | -0.0228 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.278 | -0.0221 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 5.215 | +0.0195 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 31%Turnaround possible (31%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.4M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-10.4%
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 | 0.299 | +0.210 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.007 | -0.081 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 618522.636 | +0.057 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.280 | -0.039 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 184.000 | +0.005 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.4M
Current margin: -13.4%
Projected margin: -10.4%
Grade: D
Comps: 100
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.299 | 0.760 | 46.1% | $3.0M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.280 | 0.307 | 2.7% | $354K | 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. |