Forty-four-location PE-backed dermatology platform under active management; patient acquisition, schedule integrity, 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

A PE-backed dermatology platform presents with scale problems, not awareness problems: 44 locations across multiple states, acquired practices on different systems, and patient-acquisition costs that nobody can compare site to site. Intake is a normalization exercise — every location's funnel restated in the same units before anything is prescribed, benchmarked against the $441 industry reference for dermatology patient acquisition. The specialty's operational pathology is also charted at intake: no-show rates of roughly 12–30%, described in market research as about double the healthcare norm, in a specialty where routine appointments already wait weeks.

What gets operated on: centralized paid acquisition with per-site economics, confirmation and recall infrastructure against that no-show band, and deliberate construction of the cash-pay cosmetic line — because in this engagement type, service mix is a valuation input, not a marketing preference. Published M&A analysis is explicit that cash-pay cosmetic revenue above 25% of practice revenue trends platforms toward the upper end of the multiple range; the published revenue-per-physician spread between medical and cosmetic dermatology ($1.3M versus $1.8M per FTE) is the same lever seen from the operating side.

What gets measured is what the platform trades on: new patients per site per month, per-site acquisition cost, no-show rate, cash-pay share of revenue, and position within the published EBITDA multiple bands — 9–12× for regional multi-site groups versus 11–14× at platform scale in current data. This record remains open on a standing operating cadence with the sponsor's team. Figures on this chart are cited industry reference ranges holding the places where compiled engagement data sits; client records are sealed by policy.

VITALS — INDUSTRY BASELINE vs ADMEN TARGET

MEASURE	INDUSTRY	TARGET	Δ
Patient acquisition cost	$441	$185	−58%
Appointment no-show rate	12–30%	4–10%	−68%
Revenue per FTE physician (service-mix lever)	$1.3M (medical dermatology)	$1.8M (cosmetic-balanced mix)	+38%
EBITDA multiple band (platform scale)	9–12× ($3–10M adjusted EBITDA)	11–14× ($10M+ platform band)	+2 turns

Targets apply Admen's published structural-lift factors to the cited industry baselines. They are planning references, not promises — the examination sets the real numbers.

SOURCES — REFERENCE RANGES

1. First Page Sage — Average Patient Acquisition Cost (2026 report) — Dermatology $441 per acquired patient; averages compiled 2021–2025
2. CertifyHealth — 2025 Dermatology Market Trends study — Dermatology no-show rates ~12–30%, roughly double the healthcare norm; routine wait times ~5–6 weeks
3. FOCUS Investment Banking — Dermatology Practice Valuation benchmarks — Medical derm ~$1.3M revenue per FTE physician vs cosmetic ~$1.8M; solo 3–5× to large platform 12–15× EBITDA bands
4. CT Acquisitions — Dermatology M&A Multiples Report 2026 — 9x–12x adjusted EBITDA for $3–10M regional multi-site; 11x–14x for $10M+ PE platform (Q1–Q2 2026); cash-pay cosmetic >25% trends toward upper range

FILED BY

Admen '26

← RECORDS ROOM APPLY — 6 / QUARTER →