ML Analysis — VIBRA HOSPITAL OF CLEAR LAKE
CCN 452032 | 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.
37
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health6/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-5.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -12.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-34.0%, 22.6%]. P47 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 270801.865 | -0.1827 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 303684.203 | +0.1667 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.091 | +0.0319 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0290 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 119599.980 | -0.0250 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 40%Turnaround possible (40%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$6.5M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
20.4%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
TX distress rate: 42.8%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.442 | +0.078 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.443 | +0.020 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.163 | -0.092 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 270801.865 | +0.077 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 74.000 | -0.010 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $6.5M
Current margin: -12.1%
Projected margin: 20.4%
Grade: A
Comps: 219
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 | 0.557 | 0.808 | 25.1% | $3.8M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.442 | 0.754 | 31.2% | $2.1M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.163 | 0.458 | 29.6% | $693K | 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. |