ML Analysis — VANDERBILT STALLWORTH REHABILITATION
CCN 443028 | 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.
43
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility11/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-6.5%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -23.4%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-34.8%, 21.8%]. P45 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 266667.050 | -0.1832 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 329016.737 | +0.1636 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.336 | -0.0386 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0291 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 150246.791 | -0.0240 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 39%Turnaround possible (39%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.4M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
-12.3%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
TN distress rate: 43.2%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.563 | -0.036 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.325 | -0.000 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 266667.050 | +0.077 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.497 | +0.057 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 80.000 | -0.009 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.4M
Current margin: -23.4%
Projected margin: -12.3%
Grade: B
Comps: 60
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.563 | 0.755 | 19.2% | $1.3M | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.675 | 0.748 | 7.3% | $1.1M | 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. |