ML Analysis — BSW LAKEWAY
CCN 673058 | 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.
39
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health6/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility7/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-1.3%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -2.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-29.6%, 27.0%]. P59 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 1303628.833 | +0.0436 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1267443.361 | -0.0435 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0290 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.583 | -0.0184 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 36.000 | +0.0176 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 48%Turnaround possible (48%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$5.1M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
8.4%
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 | 0.509 | +0.063 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.562 | +0.040 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1267443.361 | +0.018 | ▲ risk |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.561 | -0.033 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 36.000 | -0.015 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $5.1M
Current margin: -2.9%
Projected margin: 8.4%
Grade: B
Comps: 282
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 | 0.438 | 0.734 | 29.6% | $4.4M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.561 | 0.667 | 10.6% | $702K | 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. |