ML Analysis — KINDRED HOSPITAL DALLAS CENTRAL
CCN 452108 | 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.
36
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility8/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-2.6%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -16.2%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-30.9%, 25.7%]. P56 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 681892.200 | -0.1253 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 792395.525 | +0.1065 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0290 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Occupancy | 0.875 | +0.0199 | Higher Occupancy increases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.212 | -0.0176 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 45%Turnaround possible (45%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.5M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-10.7%
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 | 0.876 | -0.325 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.298 | -0.005 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.212 | -0.070 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 681892.200 | +0.053 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 40.000 | -0.015 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.5M
Current margin: -16.2%
Projected margin: -10.7%
Grade: D
Comps: 286
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.212 | 0.510 | 29.8% | $952K | 65% | 18mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.702 | 0.738 | 3.6% | $539K | 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. |