ML Analysis — OLYMPIA MEDICAL CENTER
CCN 050742 | 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.
32
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility8/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-12.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -29.4%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-40.5%, 16.2%]. P33 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 74254.799 | -0.2101 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 96058.132 | +0.1923 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 3784.541 | -0.0288 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Occupancy | 0.051 | -0.0269 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 5.318 | +0.0219 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 30%Low turnaround probability (30%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.9M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
3.1%
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 | 0.051 | +0.440 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.276 | -0.009 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 74254.799 | +0.089 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.180 | -0.084 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 204.000 | +0.007 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.9M
Current margin: -29.4%
Projected margin: 3.1%
Grade: A
Comps: 219
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.051 | 0.735 | 68.4% | $4.5M | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.724 | 0.738 | 1.4% | $214K | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.180 | 0.291 | 11.2% | $198K | 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. |