Where Our Numbers
Come From

Useful data, honestly framed

KlinDeck tools are built for independent clinic operators making real decisions — what a practice might cost to open, what healthy margins look like for a specialty, what a practice with a given earnings profile has tended to sell for. Those decisions deserve data that is genuinely useful, but they are not served by false precision dressed up to look more exact than the underlying sources allow.

So the data behind every tool reflects a conscious choice about how granular the source material actually supports being. Where published research gives a low, median, and high, the tools preserve that range rather than collapsing it to a single misleading number. Where the data only reliably supports a country-level view, the tool doesn't pretend to a regional one.

Not all data is equally strong

Different specialties have different depths of published research behind them. Long-established fields have mature, cross-verified industry data; newer categories have thinner, single-source data. Rather than treat every figure as equally certain, our internal compilation standard grades each benchmarked specialty against the strength of its sourcing, using the three tiers below.

General medical is deliberately excluded from benchmark comparison: structural variance across payer mix and practice models is too high to support a single reliable range. It remains available in the planning tools, where the operator supplies their own inputs.

Reputable, published sources

KlinDeck data is compiled from publicly available industry research, professional association reports, government statistical data, published lending-program terms, and disclosed practice-transaction data. The benchmarks tool cites its specific sources inline within each specialty panel; the categories below describe the kinds of source that inform the tools across specialties.

This is a representative summary, not an exhaustive list. Within the benchmarks tool specifically, each specialty panel cites its own sources inline; the other tools draw on the same body of published research described above.

What we don't claim

Credibility comes as much from what a source declines to overstate as from what it asserts. To be clear about the boundaries of what these tools are:

• Not universal truth — benchmarks are calibrated ranges, not laws, and individual practices vary widely.
• Not proprietary data — sources are public; we compile intelligently, we do not own exclusive datasets.
• Not point estimates — where the data gives a range, we keep the range.
• Not sub-segment precision — no regional, demographic, or payer-mix precision the source data does not support.
• Not professional advice — every output is descriptive, pointing to questions worth investigating, not prescriptive.
• Not real-time — benchmarks reflect published annual reports and refresh on our review schedule, not live market data.
• Not specialty-exhaustive — operators in adjacent specialties can use the structure, but should not rely on the benchmark comparisons as their own.

Reviewed and refreshed