ML Analysis — EVEREST REHABILITATION HOSPITAL TEMP
CCN 673074 | 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.
46
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health6/25
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
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-4.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -3.9%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-32.5%, 24.1%]. P51 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 412433.750 | -0.1629 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 428440.806 | +0.1514 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.006 | +0.0290 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.283 | -0.0236 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.555 | +0.0209 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 43%Turnaround possible (43%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.7M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
20.7%
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 | 0.621 | -0.089 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.489 | +0.028 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.555 | +0.083 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 412433.750 | +0.069 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 36.000 | -0.015 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.7M
Current margin: -3.9%
Projected margin: 20.7%
Grade: A
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 | 0.511 | 0.734 | 22.3% | $3.3M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.621 | 0.667 | 4.7% | $309K | 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. |