ML Analysis — SSH - HAMPTON ROADS
CCN 492008 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Hold / Selective — investigate specific opportunities but be prepared for execution risk.
48
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health10/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position10/20
Demand Defensibility10/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
1.9%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -1.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-26.4%, 30.2%]. P67 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 609690.680 | -0.1353 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 621367.440 | +0.1276 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.044 | +0.0666 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.104 | +0.0280 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.219 | -0.0268 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 53%Turnaround possible (53%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.7M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
9.2%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
VA distress rate: 29.6%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.906 | -0.353 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.495 | +0.029 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.207 | -0.072 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 609690.680 | +0.057 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 25.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.7M
Current margin: -1.9%
Projected margin: 9.2%
Grade: B
Comps: 26
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 | 0.505 | 0.587 | 8.2% | $1.2M | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.207 | 0.470 | 26.3% | $469K | 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. |