ML Analysis — MEADVILLE MEDICAL CENTER
CCN 390113 | 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.
43
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health7/25
RCM Upside17/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility6/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Limited competition supports pricing power
- Volume growth opportunity from low occupancy
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-9.5%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -3.2%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-37.8%, 18.8%]. P38 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 1185509.050 | -0.0550 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 1223794.605 | +0.0534 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 5.298 | +0.0215 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 412199.873 | -0.0153 | Lower Bed Utilization Value decreases predicted ma | |
| Commercial % | 0.880 | +0.0120 | Higher Commercial % increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 34%Turnaround possible (34%) but uncertain. Margin improvement depends on improving Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$3.6M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-1.7%
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 | 0.348 | +0.165 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.275 | -0.042 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.120 | +0.031 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1185509.050 | +0.023 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 200.000 | +0.007 | ▲ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $3.6M
Current margin: -3.2%
Projected margin: -1.7%
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 | 0.348 | 0.765 | 41.8% | $2.8M | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.275 | 0.307 | 3.2% | $886K | 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. |