ML Analysis — MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - NEW HAMPTON
CCN 161331 | 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.
39
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside17/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility3/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Heavy Medicare dependence (>55%)
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-10.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -1.0%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-38.6%, 18.1%]. P37 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log(Beds) | 2.398 | -0.0459 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1788253.818 | +0.0292 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.082 | -0.0269 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Count | 11.000 | +0.0215 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 1806037.364 | -0.0183 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 33%Turnaround possible (33%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Log(Beds).
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.9M
RCM Opportunity
C
Opportunity Grade
8.8%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
IA distress rate: 67.2%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.311 | +0.199 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.633 | +0.052 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.512 | +0.064 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 11.000 | -0.018 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1788253.818 | -0.012 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.9M
Current margin: -1.0%
Projected margin: 8.8%
Grade: C
Comps: 24
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 | 0.367 | 0.476 | 10.9% | $1.6M | 50% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.512 | 0.641 | 12.8% | $296K | 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. |