ML Analysis — ST THOMAS ASCENSION
CCN 444030 | 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 Upside19/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-8.8%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -38.5%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-37.1%, 19.5%]. P40 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 121814.500 | -0.2034 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 168696.944 | +0.1834 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0291 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 46278.385 | -0.0274 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.292 | -0.0259 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m |
Turnaround: 35%Turnaround possible (35%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.8M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
-13.2%
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 | 0.380 | +0.135 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.095 | -0.040 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 121814.500 | +0.086 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.322 | -0.021 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 90.000 | -0.008 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.8M
Current margin: -38.5%
Projected margin: -13.2%
Grade: A
Comps: 57
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.380 | 0.782 | 40.2% | $2.7M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.322 | 0.410 | 8.7% | $112K | 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. |