ML Analysis — PAM SPEC HOSPITAL OF PITTSBURGH
CCN 392028 | 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.
34
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health3/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
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:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-10.1%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -10.5%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-38.4%, 18.2%]. P37 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 192042.587 | -0.1936 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 212163.238 | +0.1780 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 54952.826 | -0.0271 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Occupancy | 0.286 | -0.0136 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 63.000 | +0.0134 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 33%Turnaround possible (33%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$7.3M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
50.1%
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 | 0.286 | +0.222 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.498 | +0.029 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 192042.587 | +0.082 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.318 | -0.023 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 63.000 | -0.011 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $7.3M
Current margin: -10.5%
Projected margin: 50.1%
Grade: A
Comps: 88
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 | 0.502 | 0.780 | 27.7% | $4.2M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.286 | 0.747 | 46.0% | $3.0M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.318 | 0.407 | 8.9% | $126K | 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. |