ML Analysis — TRINITY REGIONAL HOSPITAL SACHSE
CCN 670319 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Pass — risk/return profile does not justify PE capital deployment at market multiples.
24
/ 100 (F)
Financial Health3/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility1/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-21.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-49.6%, 7.0%]. P19 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 170535.906 | -0.1966 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 1022493.875 | +0.0782 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0290 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 10563.045 | -0.0286 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Occupancy | 0.062 | -0.0263 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 18%Low turnaround probability (18%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.1M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
24.7%
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 | 0.062 | +0.430 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.164 | -0.028 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 170535.906 | +0.083 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.224 | -0.064 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 32.000 | -0.016 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.1M
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: 24.7%
Grade: A
Comps: 273
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.062 | 0.651 | 58.9% | $3.9M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.224 | 0.518 | 29.4% | $188K | 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. |