ML Analysis — SPAULDING HOSPITAL CAMBRIDGE
CCN 222000 | 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.
42
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility12/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
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)
-14.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -36.1%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.0%, 13.6%]. P28 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 398422.439 | -0.1648 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 542443.678 | +0.1373 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.122 | -0.0566 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.292 | -0.0261 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 243092.266 | -0.0209 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.3M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-33.0%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
MA distress rate: 61.8%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.610 | -0.079 | ▼ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.313 | -0.002 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 398422.439 | +0.070 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.425 | +0.025 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 180.000 | +0.004 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.3M
Current margin: -36.1%
Projected margin: -33.0%
Grade: D
Comps: 53
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.610 | 0.819 | 20.8% | $1.4M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.425 | 0.533 | 10.8% | $903K | 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. |