ML Analysis — WASHINGTON HOSPITAL DISTRICT
CCN 050195 | 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.
44
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health8/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility13/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
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
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-8.8%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -9.3%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-37.1%, 19.5%]. P40 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bed Count | 415.000 | -0.0415 | Higher Bed Count decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1284455.759 | -0.0412 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 6.028 | +0.0384 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 1404309.961 | +0.0312 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.144 | +0.0164 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m |
Turnaround: 35%Turnaround possible (35%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Bed Count.
nan%
Distress Risk
$8.2M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-7.8%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
CA distress rate: 49.7%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.413 | +0.104 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.367 | +0.007 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.228 | -0.063 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 415.000 | +0.036 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1284455.759 | +0.017 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $8.2M
Current margin: -9.3%
Projected margin: -7.8%
Grade: D
Comps: 139
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 | 0.228 | 0.292 | 6.4% | $4.0M | 65% | 18mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.413 | 0.759 | 34.6% | $2.3M | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.633 | 0.757 | 12.4% | $1.9M | 50% | 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. |