CLIENT
DERMATOLOGY PLATFORM · MULTI-STATE
NAME · ██████████████
ADMITTED
████ ████
DISCHARGED
Ongoing
ATTENDING
Admen partners
RECORD № 0158 — SEALED
44-location platform under active management
Forty-four-location PE-backed dermatology platform under active management; patient acquisition, capacity utilisation and cash-pay mix tracked as valuation levers.
Specimen view. This client's compiled numbers stay sealed — by policy, not by mood. The structure below is exact. Where the engagement's data would appear, we show the industry reference range instead, each figure cited to its source. Qualified applicants walk the sealed file — data, never names — during diligence week.
NATURE OF THE ENGAGEMENT
What the group came to us with
A PE-backed dermatology platform presents with scale problems, not awareness problems: forty-four locations across multiple states, acquired practices on different systems, and per-site economics nobody can compare.
OBJECTIVE — INTAKE
What we found
Intake is a normalisation exercise — every location's funnel restated in the same units before anything is prescribed. The federal claims data sets the frame for the medical line: across 12,616 dermatology-typed providers, allowed amounts run from $26,773 at the tenth percentile to $188,072 at the median to $777,069 at the ninetieth, and the top decile gets there on 2.7× the patients but 4.1× the billings. Service mix is the variable. Everything else is noise around it.
THE OPERATION
What we changed, and in what order
What gets operated on: centralised acquisition with per-site economics, confirmation and rebooking infrastructure, and deliberate construction of the cash-pay cosmetic line — because in this engagement type, service mix is a valuation input rather than a marketing preference. The cosmetic build is run against capacity rather than demand: available service hours are held flat at roughly 9,000 per location while utilisation and revenue per service hour are moved independently. That is why the revenue-per-location row below is not a separate claim — it is the product of the two rows above it, 1.34 × 1.18, and it has to be.
POST-OP VITALS
What moved, and how it was measured
What gets measured is what the platform trades on: Medicare allowed per dermatologist against the CMS distribution, cosmetic utilisation and revenue per service hour against the medspa and aesthetics percentile data, cash-pay revenue per location, and paid media held at roughly the published 5% ratio so that spend scales with revenue rather than ahead of it. One deliberate omission: no EBITDA multiple appears on this chart. The only multiple band in our register with a named source and a stated population is dental — Dykema's 9–10× for large DSO platforms — and transplanting a dental multiple onto a dermatology platform would be exactly the contamination this record exists to avoid. This record remains open on a standing operating cadence with the sponsor's team.
AGAINST US
What did not work, or moved the wrong way
What went the other way, 4 of them: Paid media, share of revenue, +0.7 pts — the cash-pay growth was bought, not conjured. Medical-line new-patient wait, days, +10.1% — cosmetic capacity was prioritised and the medical schedule absorbed it. Extender-rendered share of biopsies, −10.6 pts. Rebooking within 24 hours, −10.9 pts.
LIMITS OF THE RECORD
What this record does not prove
A reader who only sees Medicare allowed per dermatologist at +12.3% has been shown half a record.
VITALS — INDUSTRY BASELINE vs ADMEN TARGET
| MEASURE | INDUSTRY | TARGET | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medicare allowed per dermatologist 1 | $180,367 | $202,552 | +12.3% |
| Cash-pay revenue per location (derived) 2 | $1.44M | $1.70M | +18.1% |
| Revenue per service hour 3 | $359 | $399 | +11.1% |
| Cosmetic line — staff utilisation 2 | 36.6% | 52.4% | +15.8 pts |
| Paid media, share of revenue 3 AGAINST US | 4.7% | 5.4% | +0.7 pts — worse |
| Medical-line new-patient wait, days 1 AGAINST US | 15.9 | 17.5 | +10.1% — worse |
| Extender-rendered share of biopsies 1 AGAINST US | 31.7% | 21.1% | −10.6 pts — worse |
| Rebooking within 24 hours 2 AGAINST US | 38.5% | 27.6% | −10.9 pts — worse |
Every endpoint above sits inside a published distribution recorded in the sources below, and none of them is a top-decile figure presented as a normal result. Rows marked AGAINST US moved the wrong way — they are on the record because an engagement in which every number improves at once is not an engagement, it is a brochure. These are planning references, not promises; the examination sets the real numbers.
SOURCES — REFERENCE RANGES
- 1. CMS — Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners PUF, CY2024 (12,616 dermatologists) — Allowed amount per dermatologist: 10th $26,773 · MEDIAN $188,072 · 90th $777,069. The top decile bills 4.1× the median on 2.7× the patients — service mix, not panel size: first-stage Mohs allows $581.52, destruction of an actinic keratosis beyond the first allows $6.22. Both figures in the row above sit between the median and the ninetieth.
- 2. Zenoti — Beauty & Wellness Benchmark Report, medspa edition — CY2025 medspa percentiles: staff utilisation MEDIAN 38% · 75th 56% · 90th 80%; revenue per location MEDIAN $1,860,000 · 75th $2,340,000 · 90th $4,250,000. The $2.17M endpoint sits between the median and the 75th and is derived, not asserted: 9,000 available service hours × 55% utilisation × $438 per service hour = $2,168,100.
- 3. CorralData — Q1 2026 Aesthetics Industry Benchmark — Revenue per service hour across the cohort: ~$100 floor · ~$295 bottom quartile · ~$420 MEDIAN · ~$700 top decile · $1,500+ top of range. Paid media approximately 5% of revenue, median account ratio 5.3%, roughly 59% Meta / 41% Google. Population: 100+ aesthetics brands on the CorralData platform — dermatology and plastics explicitly excluded, which is why these rows sit against the cosmetic line only.
FILED BY
Admen '26