ML Analysis — JOHN C. FREMONT HEALTHCARE DISTRICT
CCN 051304 | 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 Health4/25
RCM Upside20/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-13.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -40.5%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-41.9%, 14.6%]. P30 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 1237796.889 | -0.0477 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.350 | -0.0427 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Log(Beds) | 2.890 | -0.0345 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.555 | +0.0209 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 18.000 | +0.0204 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 28%Low turnaround probability (28%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Reimbursement Quality.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.1M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-35.6%
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 | 0.581 | -0.052 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.369 | +0.007 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.555 | +0.083 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1237796.889 | +0.020 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 18.000 | -0.017 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.1M
Current margin: -40.5%
Projected margin: -35.6%
Grade: D
Comps: 57
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.581 | 0.654 | 7.3% | $480K | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.631 | 0.657 | 2.6% | $390K | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.555 | 0.642 | 8.7% | $227K | 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. |