ML Analysis — CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF WI-FOX VALLEY
CCN 523302 | 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.
37
/ 100 (D)
Financial Health5/25
RCM Upside19/25
Market Position6/20
Demand Defensibility3/15
Operational Efficiency4/15
Entry Multiple: 6.0x – 8.5x
Est. MOIC: 1.5x
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)
-14.7%
R²=0.34 | n=4,907 | Grade B | Actual: -19.7%
Ridge regression trained on 4,907 HCRIS hospitals. 90% CI: [-43.0%, 13.6%]. P28 nationally.
| Driver | Value | Effect | Explanation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reimbursement Quality | 0.620 | -0.1203 | Higher Reimbursement Quality decreases predicted m | |
| Revenue/Bed | 733577.405 | -0.1181 | Lower Revenue/Bed decreases predicted margin | |
| Expense/Bed | 877934.429 | +0.0960 | Higher Expense/Bed increases predicted margin | |
| Net-to-Gross | 0.735 | +0.0411 | Higher Net-to-Gross increases predicted margin | |
| State Peer Margin | 0.004 | +0.0371 | Higher State Peer Margin increases predicted margi |
Turnaround: 26%Low turnaround probability (26%). Structural disadvantages in Reimbursement Quality and Revenue/Bed.
nan%
Distress Risk
$1.1M
RCM Opportunity
D
Opportunity Grade
-16.2%
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 | 0.355 | +0.158 | ▲ risk |
| Medicare Day Pct | nan | +nan | ▼ risk |
| Net To Gross Ratio | 0.735 | +0.163 | ▲ risk |
| Medicaid Day Pct | 0.157 | +0.068 | ▲ risk |
| Revenue Per Bed | 733577.405 | +0.050 | ▲ risk |
| Beds | 42.000 | -0.014 | ▼ risk |
RCM Improvement Opportunity
Total (risk-adjusted): $1.1M
Current margin: -19.7%
Projected margin: -16.2%
Grade: D
Comps: 90
Gap analysis vs P75 peers with 60% closure assumption. Confidence-weighted by lever implementation difficulty.
| Lever | Current | Benchmark | Gap | Impact | Confidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occupancy Improvement | 0.355 | 0.515 | 16.1% | $1.1M | 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. |