ML Analysis — LARABIDA CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
CCN 143301 | 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.
34
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health3/25
RCM Upside21/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency2/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-22.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -50.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-51.0%, 5.6%]. P18 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 785192.461 | -0.1108 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Medicaid % | 0.586 | -0.0601 | Higher Medicaid % decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.123 | +0.0226 | Higher Reimbursement Quality increases predicted m | |
| Occupancy | 0.896 | +0.0211 | Higher Occupancy increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 39.000 | +0.0171 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 17%Low turnaround probability (17%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Medicaid %.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.2M
RCM Opportunity
C
Opportunity Grade
-42.7%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
IL distress rate: 51.0%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.896 | -0.345 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.586 | +0.496 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 785192.462 | +0.047 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.297 | -0.032 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 39.000 | -0.015 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.2M
Current margin: -50.0%
Projected margin: -42.7%
Grade: C
Comps: 75
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 | 0.414 | 0.513 | 9.9% | $1.5M | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.297 | 0.508 | 21.1% | $757K | 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. |