GOING BEYOND OTHERS' LIMITS
706.617.7182
Blog Layout
Valuation Trends: Healthcare Services Valuation Multiples
Will Hamilton • November 26, 2018
One of the questions we get asked a lot is how valuations have changed over time. While we usually answer this question with only anecdotal evidence, here we’ve tried to answer it with data.
There are a couple of issues with doing this type of analysis:
- Finding a large enough sample for each year
- Ensuring the relative comparability of the sample used from year to year
- Where possible, adjusting for other key factors that influence the valuation multiples, such as size
In order to address issues 1 and 2, we put together a broad sample of transactions involving capital-light outpatient healthcare service providers. These consist of providers of home-based services (home health and hospice), office-base professional services (physician practices, physical therapy, DSOs), and the more capital-light specialty outpatient facilities (ASCs, endoscopy, dialysis - excluding imaging and radiation therapy). To address issue 3, we also “size-adjusted” the multiples from each year using a regression equation, as explained here.
Using the regression equation from the sample for each year, the corresponding multiples at different sizes (in terms of EBITDA) are presented below.
- The valuation multiples from larger platform deals increased significantly between 2012 and 2015, corresponding with an increase in private equity interest in the sector.
- On the low end of the spectrum, the size-adjusted multiples remained relatively consistent with some random year-to-year fluctuation likely due to sample size, before increasing significantly so far in 2018, which may be early evidence of the impact of tax reform.
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.
We ranked the 30 largest healthcare services and information technology deals of 2018, according to our database, by valuation multiple.
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:
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.
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.
CON Laws, Scope of Practice Restrictions, and Provider Non-Compete Clauses Targeted in New Trump Adm
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.
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.
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.
CMS' offers a helpful online tool that shows provider market saturation levels at the national-, state-, and county-levels for the following health services:
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.
