ML Analysis — FRANCISCAN HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
CCN 223300 | 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.
38
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position2/20
Demand Defensibility8/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-20.4%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -27.6%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-48.7%, 7.9%]. P20 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 543226.554 | -0.1446 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 693241.071 | +0.1187 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.404 | -0.0583 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| State Peer Margin | -0.122 | -0.0566 | Lower State Peer Margin decreases predicted margin | |
| Medicaid % | 0.364 | -0.0333 | Higher Medicaid % decreases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 19%Low turnaround probability (19%). Structural disadvantages in Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.2M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-24.0%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
MA distress rate: 61.8%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.636 | +0.119 | ▲ risk |
| Occupancy Rate | 0.503 | +0.020 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.364 | +0.275 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 543226.554 | +0.061 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 112.000 | -0.005 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.2M
Current margin: -27.6%
Projected margin: -24.0%
Grade: D
Comps: 56
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.503 | 0.815 | 31.2% | $2.1M | 55% | 24mo |
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.636 | 0.646 | 1.0% | $151K | 50% | 24mo |
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. |