ML Analysis — MARSHFIELD MEDICAL CENTER - RIVER RE
CCN 520215 | 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 Health4/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position8/20
Demand Defensibility7/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 8.0x – 10.0x
Est. MOIC: 1.9x
Risk Factors:
- Negative operating margin
- Small facility (<50 beds) — limited scale
- Expenses exceed revenue
Catalysts:
- Limited competition supports pricing power
Margin Prediction (Trained Ridge Model)
-15.0%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -34.3%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.3%, 13.3%]. P28 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expense/Bed | 2489261.400 | -0.1025 | Higher Expense/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Log(Beds) | 1.609 | -0.0642 | Lower Log(Beds) decreases predicted margin | |
| Revenue/Bed | 1853118.000 | +0.0382 | Higher Revenue/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.004 | +0.0371 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi | |
| Bed Count | 5.000 | +0.0224 | Higher Bed Count increases predicted margin |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Expense/Bed and Log(Beds).
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.2M
RCM Opportunity
B
Opportunity Grade
-20.9%
Projected Margin
Distress Analysis
Risk: Unknown
National distress rate: 49.3%
WI distress rate: 34.5%
Model AUC: 0.629
| Factor | Value | Contribution | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Rate | 0.320 | +0.191 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | 0.378 | +0.009 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.308 | -0.027 | ▼ risk |
| Beds | 5.000 | -0.019 | ▼ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 1853118.000 | -0.016 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.2M
Current margin: -34.3%
Projected margin: -20.9%
Grade: B
Comps: 50
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 | 0.622 | 0.658 | 3.5% | $529K | 50% | 24mo |
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.320 | 0.376 | 5.7% | $374K | 55% | 24mo |
| Net-to-Gross Ratio Improvement | 0.308 | 0.621 | 31.3% | $340K | 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. |