ML Analysis — THE WASHINGTON HOSPITAL
CCN 390042 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Hold / Selective — investigate specific opportunities but be prepared for execution risk.
46
/ 100 (C)
Financial Health6/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility9/15
Operational Efficiency6/15
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
- Limited competition supports pricing power
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-11.0%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -10.4%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-39.3%, 17.3%]. P35 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 1114483.551 | -0.0649 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.395 | -0.0557 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Expense/Bed | 1230659.210 | +0.0525 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 5.366 | +0.0230 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin | |
| Commercial % | 0.983 | +0.0162 | Higher Commercial % increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 32%Turnaround possible (32%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$2.4M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-9.4%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
PA distress rate: 48.1%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.396 | +0.120 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.017 | -0.071 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1114483.551 | +0.027 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.402 | +0.015 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 214.000 | +0.009 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.4M
Current margin: -10.4%
Projected margin: -9.4%
Grade: D
Comps: 93
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.396 | 0.765 | 36.9% | $2.4M | 55% | 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. |