ML Analysis — SOUTH TEXAS SURGICAL HOSPITAL
CCN 670061 | 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 Health6/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility4/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-10.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -14.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-38.6%, 18.0%]. P36 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 1924657.303 | -0.0329 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0290 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Occupancy | 0.087 | -0.0249 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 146447.658 | -0.0241 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.497 | -0.0204 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 32%Turnaround possible (32%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$5.7M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
-3.8%
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 | 0.087 | +0.407 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.273 | -0.009 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.232 | -0.061 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 33.000 | -0.015 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1688872.182 | -0.006 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $5.7M
Current margin: -14.0%
Projected margin: -3.8%
Grade: B
Comps: 270
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.087 | 0.663 | 57.6% | $3.8M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.232 | 0.519 | 28.7% | $1.9M | 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. |