ML Analysis — NTSH - WITCHITA FALLS & VERNON
CCN 454008 | 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.
40
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position4/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-21.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-49.5%, 7.1%]. P19 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.992 | -0.2275 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Revenue/Bed | 91686.861 | -0.2077 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 217520.179 | +0.1774 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 603.000 | -0.0709 | Higher Bed Count decreases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 1.000 | +0.0708 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 18%Low turnaround probability (18%). Structural disadvantages in Reimbursement Quality and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.6M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-47.1%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
TX distress rate: 42.8%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net To Gross Ratio | 1.000 | +0.281 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.008 | -0.055 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 91686.861 | +0.088 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 603.000 | +0.061 | ▲ risk |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.564 | -0.036 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.6M
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: -47.1%
Grade: D
Comps: 56
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.564 | 0.808 | 24.4% | $1.6M | 55% | 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. |