ML Analysis — UT MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER
CCN 450076 | Clustering + Distress + RCM Opportunity
🛡️ Public data only — no PHI permitted on this instance.
Investability Score
Buy — solid fundamentals with identifiable value creation levers. Proceed to detailed diligence.
69
/ 100 (B)
Financial Health17/25
RCM Upside18/25
Market Position9/20
Demand Defensibility15/15
Operational Efficiency10/15
Entry Multiple: 9.5x – 11.5x
Est. MOIC: 2.3x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
Catalysts:
- RCM optimization could add 3-5pp margin
- Strong commercial payer base protects revenue
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
21.4%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -0.8%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-6.9%, 49.7%]. P94 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue/Bed | 6796642.139 | +0.7283 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 6851038.893 | -0.6398 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Bed Utilization Value | 5922826.889 | +0.1675 | Higher Bed Utilization Value increases predicted m | |
| Bed Count | 721.000 | -0.0893 | Higher Bed Count decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 6.581 | +0.0513 | Higher Log(Beds) increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 82%Model predicts 82% probability of positive margin. Key drivers: Revenue/Bed and Expense/Bed.
Large Academic Medical Ce
Archetype
34.8%
Distress Risk
$2.5M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-0.8%
Projected Margin
Cluster: Large Academic Medical Center
Percentile within cluster: P95. Large medical centers trade at premium multiples (12-14x). Limited PE value creation but strong cash flow.
Nearest Peers
| Hospital | State | Beds |
|---|---|---|
| NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST HOSPITAL | NC | 800 |
| HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER | NJ | 779 |
| TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL | PA | 761 |
| VCU HEALTH SYSTEM MCV HOSPITAL | VA | 842 |
| UH CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER | OH | 660 |
| FROEDTERT MEM. LUTHERAN HOSPT. | WI | 731 |
Distress Analysis
Risk: Elevated
National distress rate: 49.3%
TX distress rate: 42.8%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.871 | -0.321 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 6796642.139 | -0.308 | ▼ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.005 | -0.084 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 721.000 | +0.077 | ▲ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.448 | +0.035 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.323 | -0.001 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $2.5M
Current margin: -0.8%
Projected margin: -0.8%
Grade: D
Comps: 42
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payer Mix Optimization | 0.672 | 0.837 | 16.5% | $2.5M | 50% | 24mo |
Predicted RCM Performance (Public Data Only)
A
RCM Grade
Strong RCM profile — likely low-risk from an operations perspective. Focus diligence on growth thesis.
| Metric | Predicted | 90% CI | Percentile | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denial Rate | 2.0% | [2.0%, 25.0%] | P0 | Strong — predicted denial rate is in the top third nationall |
| Days in AR | 25.0 | [25.0, 75.0] | P0 | Strong — predicted days in ar is in the top third nationally |
| 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. |