ML Analysis — L A DOWNTOWN MEDICAL CENTER
CCN 050763 | 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.
45
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health8/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility14/15
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
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-8.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -16.8%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-36.5%, 20.1%]. P42 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 380486.686 | -0.1673 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 444222.371 | +0.1494 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 5.753 | +0.0320 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 315.000 | -0.0259 | Higher Bed Count decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 217937.214 | -0.0217 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 36%Turnaround possible (36%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.6M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-12.9%
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 | 0.573 | -0.044 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.474 | +0.025 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 380486.686 | +0.071 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 315.000 | +0.022 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.339 | -0.013 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.6M
Current margin: -16.8%
Projected margin: -12.9%
Grade: D
Comps: 169
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 | 0.526 | 0.755 | 22.9% | $3.4M | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.573 | 0.753 | 18.0% | $1.2M | 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. |