ML Analysis — PHYSICIANS MEDICAL CENTER
CCN 190241 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Pass — risk/return profile does not justify PE capital deployment at market multiples.
30
/ 100 (F)
Financial Health4/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility1/15
Operational Efficiency0/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Low occupancy (<30%) — demand risk
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-14.2%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -25.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-42.5%, 14.1%]. P29 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 549716.033 | -0.1437 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 687618.000 | +0.1194 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 32029.117 | -0.0279 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Occupancy | 0.058 | -0.0265 | Lower Occupancy decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 3.401 | -0.0226 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 27%Low turnaround probability (27%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$4.8M
RCM Opportunity
A
Opportunity Grade
4.3%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
LA distress rate: 46.3%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.058 | +0.433 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.125 | -0.035 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.228 | -0.063 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 549716.033 | +0.061 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 30.000 | -0.016 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $4.8M
Current margin: -25.1%
Projected margin: 4.3%
Grade: A
Comps: 137
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.058 | 0.688 | 63.0% | $4.2M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.228 | 0.581 | 35.3% | $682K | 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. |