Blog Layout

CMS Makes Assessing Provider Market Saturation Easier with a New Interactive Database

Darcy Devine • October 31, 2018

CMS' offers a helpful online tool that shows provider market saturation levels at the national-, state-, and county-levels for the following health services:

Ambulance (Emergency, Non-Emergency, Emergency & Non-Emergency)
Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs
Chiropractic Services
Clinical Laboratory (Billing Independently)
Federally Qualified Health Centers
Home Health Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities (Part A and Part B)
Hospice
Long-Term Care Hospitals
Ophthalmology
Physical and Occupational Therapy
Preventive Health Services
Psychotherapy
Skilled Nursing Facilities

The tool allows user to choose three search criteria: reference period, metric, and health service area (listed above). Reference periods are 12-month periods dating back to 10/1/14. The most recent data reflects the 12-months ending 9/30/2017.

The metrics that can be chosen are:
Number of Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries
Number of Providers
Average Number of Users per Provider
Percentage of Users out of FFS Beneficiaries
Number of Users
Average Number of Providers per County
Number of Dual Eligible Users
Percentage of Dual Eligible Users out of Total Users
Percentage of Dual Eligible Users out of Dual Eligible FFS Beneficiaries
Total Payments

After the user chooses the reference period, metric, and health service area (listed above), the tool generates an interactive, color-coded map with the data. Below is a look at the market saturation map for hospice providers, on a national basis, from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017.

Once a national map is generated, users can click on the relevant state, and then the relevant county, to get more specific data. (Below is a glimpse of the hospice provider market saturation data available for Georgia.)

Market saturation data are based on claims data instead of the provider’s practice address. A provider is defined as “serving a county” if, during the 12-month reference period, the provider had paid claims for more than ten beneficiaries located in a county.A provider is defined as “serving a state” if that provider serves any county in the state.

The tool is being used by CMS to monitor and manage market saturation as a means to help prevent potential fraud, waste, and abuse. CMS hopes the data will also be used to assist health care providers in making informed decisions about their service locations and the beneficiary population they serve.

We believe the interactive tool can be helpful to business appraisers, as the data provide insight regarding competitive risks and growth opportunities for businesses in the listed health service areas.

The tool is available through the CMS website at: https://data.cms.gov/market-saturation. Future releases may include additional health service areas.

< Older Post Newer Post >

The 30 Largest Healthcare Deals of 2018: Who Got the Lowest Valuations?

By Will Hamilton • February 11, 2019

We ranked the 30 largest healthcare services and information technology deals of 2018, according to our database, by valuation multiple. The lowest reported price to EBITDA multiples (10x or lower, sorted alphabetically) are listed below.

The 30 Largest Healthcare Deals of 2018: Who Got the Highest Valuations?

By Will Hamilton • January 8, 2019

We ranked the 30 largest healthcare services and information technology deals of 2018, according to our database, by valuation multiple.

The 30 Largest Healthcare Deals of 2018: Who Got the Highest Valuations?

By Will Hamilton • January 8, 2019

We ranked the 30 largest healthcare services and information technology deals of 2018, according to our database, by valuation multiple. The highest reported price to EBITDA multiples (15x or higher, sorted alphabetically) were as follows:

Top 10 Most Valuable Intangible Assets in Healthcare Services

By Will Hamilton • January 3, 2019

Healthcare services organizations rely on a variety of intangible assets to create business value, including patient and customer relationships, medical records, trade names, assembled workforce, licenses and certifications, non-compete clauses, proprietary technology, software, and others.

CON Valuation: Where's the Market Data?

By Will Hamilton • December 14, 2018

For those of you who’ve been involved in a transaction where the only asset transferred is a certificate of need, you’ve probably found that market data is scarce for CON-only deals.

United States Department of Health and Human Services

CON Laws, Scope of Practice Restrictions, and Provider Non-Compete Clauses Targeted in New Trump Adm

By Darcy Devine • December 4, 2018

On Monday, December 3, 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – in collaboration with the Departments of the Treasury and Labor, the Federal Trade Commission, and several offices within the White House – released a report detailing recommendations for improving choice and competition in the healthcare industry.

Valuation Trends: Healthcare Services Valuation Multiples

By Will Hamilton • November 26, 2018

One of the questions we get asked a lot is how valuations have changed over time.

Which Healthcare Services Segments Have the Highest Margins?

By Will Hamilton • November 19, 2018

One of the many benefits of tracking healthcare transactions closely and maintaining a very large database of deals where we can get reliable price to EBITDA and revenue multiples is that it provides insight into profit margins for segments where other financial benchmarking information is sparse.

Valuing ACOs: Weighing the Probability of Shared Savings

By Will Hamilton • November 16, 2018

The most important component of a valuation of an accountable care organization (or other multi-provider network that relies on risk-based shared savings models) is the revenue forecast, which involves “probability-adjusting” future shared savings payments in some manner.

$11.5m Sightline Health Settlement: What Can We Learn?

By Will Hamilton and Darcy Devine • September 17, 2018

Earlier this year, radiation therapy provider SightLine Health reached a $11.5m settlement with the DOJ in a lawsuit alleging it knowingly violated the federal physician self-referral and anti-kickback laws.