ML Analysis — RUSK STATE HOSPITAL
CCN 454009 | 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 Health3/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
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
- Limited competition supports pricing power
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-19.4%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-47.7%, 8.9%]. P21 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reimbursement Quality | 1.000 | -0.2297 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Revenue/Bed | 121174.385 | -0.2035 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 203570.679 | +0.1791 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 1.000 | +0.0708 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 5.889 | +0.0352 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 20%Low turnaround probability (20%). Structural disadvantages in Reimbursement Quality and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.0M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-45.3%
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 |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.468 | +0.053 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 121174.385 | +0.086 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 361.000 | +0.028 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.0M
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: -45.3%
Grade: D
Comps: 109
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.468 | 0.778 | 31.0% | $2.0M | 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. |