ML Analysis — QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
CCN 050009 | 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.
51
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health8/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility12/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-5.4%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -16.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-33.7%, 22.9%]. P48 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 2880975.076 | -0.1508 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 2469043.706 | +0.1242 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.099 | +0.0294 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.171 | -0.0222 | Lower Net-to-Gross decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 1257970.236 | +0.0128 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m |
Turnaround: 41%Turnaround possible (41%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$8.4M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-13.8%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
CA distress rate: 49.7%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.171 | -0.088 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.418 | +0.016 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 2469043.706 | -0.053 | ▼ risk |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.509 | +0.015 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 119.000 | -0.004 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $8.4M
Current margin: -16.7%
Projected margin: -13.8%
Grade: D
Comps: 188
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.171 | 0.306 | 13.5% | $4.6M | 65% | 18mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.582 | 0.736 | 15.5% | $2.3M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.509 | 0.722 | 21.2% | $1.4M | 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. |