Industry Statistics and Data Guide

Dataset guide

CMS Physician Fee Schedule final rules

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) sets payment rules for physician and other professional services billed to Medicare. CMS explains that rates use work, practice expense, and malpractice relative value units, adjusted for geographic cost and multiplied by a conversion factor. Its CY 2025 final rule lists a $32.35 conversion factor, down 2.83% from $33.29 in 2024; CMS describes the average PFS payment reduction as 2.93% against most of 2024. These are related but differently calculated comparisons, so avoid treating them as interchangeable. The conversion factor is one input into allowed amounts, not a prediction of a group’s revenue: code mix, RVUs, geographic adjustment, place of service, payer contracts, and patient volume all matter. Owners can use the annual rule to flag codes and policies that may affect a service line, model Medicare exposure, and prepare questions for a billing review. Check the applicable year’s rule and fee schedule before budgeting.

MedPAC annual reports

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) studies payment and access in Medicare, assesses quality, and examines program spending before advising Congress. Its reports library includes recurring analyses of physician and other provider payment alongside broader Medicare financing chapters. These publications do not set a fee for an individual OB-GYN service, and MedPAC recommendations do not themselves change payment policy. The useful public evidence is the report’s defined Medicare population, trend period, payment comparisons, and stated recommendation; read the chapter tables and methods before carrying any result into a forecast. An owner can use MedPAC material to understand the policy case behind proposed payment changes and identify trends worth discussing with a reimbursement specialist. The reports also help separate program-wide arguments from the economics of a local practice. For planning, record which report edition and chapter supports a claim and whether it reports observed payments, modeled adequacy, or a recommendation. Pair those findings with your own payer mix and collected revenue instead of assuming a national Medicare analysis describes commercial contracts.

AMA Physician Practice Benchmark Survey

The American Medical Association’s practice characteristics report describes physician ownership and employment arrangements using its Physician Practice Benchmark Survey. The 2024 publication reports that 42.2% of physicians worked in private practice, compared with 60.1% in 2012. That trend is a useful marker of structural change, but it is a broad physician figure and does not give an OB-GYN-only ownership rate or forecast which model will perform best. Survey definitions and respondent coverage determine what counts as private practice, so consult the publication’s notes when comparing years. Practice owners can use the series when discussing future recruiting and succession. The data also help frame affiliation decisions and the availability of independent practices in a market. A group can put its own ownership choices in context when speaking with lenders or potential partners. Do not apply the national share directly to a city or specialty; use local competitor research and your organization’s goals to decide whether the trend has practical bearing.

BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics

The Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program estimates employment and wages by occupation and geography. Its tables let a reader select national, state, metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan areas, then inspect percentile and mean wage estimates. The May 2024 tables include occupational estimates for obstetricians and gynecologists, medical assistants, and registered nurses. The table is designed around occupations and employer-reported wage data; it does not measure total compensation, benefits, productivity, vacancy duration, or the wage an individual practice must offer. A useful comparison requires matching the occupational code, geography, and percentile to the role being budgeted. Owners can use OEWS to set a first-pass hiring range, compare nearby labor markets, and spot where staffing assumptions in a growth plan may be unrealistic. Treat estimates as a broad reference point, then calibrate with current job postings, recruiter input, and your own compensation history. Do not mix editions or compare unlike geographies as though they were equivalent.

MGMA public summaries

The Medical Group Management Association publishes practice-management research and public summaries alongside detailed benchmarking products. Its materials cover medical group operations and staffing, along with compensation, productivity, and financial performance. Publicly available summaries can identify the subject and headline findings of a study, while detailed tables or specialty-level comparisons may require membership or purchase. Before using a reported metric, check the reporting year and specialty mix. Also look at practice size, geography, and whether the figure is a median, mean, or another statistic. A benchmark drawn from multispecialty groups may not represent an obstetrics and gynecology office with different call, delivery, or procedure responsibilities. Owners can use MGMA material to choose which internal measures deserve attention, such as visits per clinician, staffing expense, or days in accounts receivable, and to prepare more specific questions for a financial review. Compare like with like and assess the underlying definition before setting a target. Public summaries support orientation; detailed dataset access may be needed when a decision depends on a narrow peer group.

ACOG workforce and practice resources

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists provides workforce and practice resources focused on obstetrics and gynecology. Depending on the publication, resources may discuss the physician workforce, practice settings, access, professional issues, or changes affecting the specialty. These materials are specialty-relevant, but a policy statement or educational resource should not be mistaken for a measured national estimate. When a report presents a count or trend, review its publication date, included population, geographic coverage, and method to see what it can support. Public resources do not necessarily provide a local supply estimate or a complete census of clinicians. Owners can use them to identify specialty-specific themes that deserve attention in recruiting, service planning, and conversations about practice conditions. They can also provide context for decisions that broad physician datasets cannot describe. Link the underlying ACOG publication when citing a specific figure, and describe the population in the same terms the source uses. If a resource offers context rather than a quantified measure, use it for that purpose instead of extracting a benchmark.

AAGL and SMFM publications

The American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) publish specialty resources and research relevant to gynecologic surgery and maternal-fetal medicine. Depending on the item, a publication may address workforce or practice organization. It may also cover professional activity or clinical and policy topics; a specialty publication does not necessarily contain a business benchmark. Read the methods and stated population before using a number, particularly when members, surveyed clinicians, or selected institutions form the sample. A subspecialty sample cannot automatically describe every community OB-GYN group. For an owner, these sources can clarify whether a service line depends on a narrow specialist workforce, inform recruiting and referral planning, and point toward specialty-specific developments that broad labor or physician surveys miss. Use the linked publication itself for any figure and preserve its definition when summarizing it. If the public material does not provide a comparable count, treat it as qualitative context and base capacity or payroll decisions on local information collected for the relevant role.

Peer-reviewed acquisition studies

Peer-reviewed studies can show how physician practice transactions relate to ownership and care-market outcomes, but their findings depend on the transaction sample, comparison group, and observation period. A 2020 JAMA Internal Medicine study of private equity involvement in women’s health care documents affiliations and market activity in the women’s health sector. A 2022 JAMA Health Forum claims study examines spending and utilization following private equity acquisition of physician practices. Neither source is a valuation guide for a particular OB-GYN group, and claims-based results should not be read as proof that a transaction will produce the same outcome elsewhere. Owners considering a sale or partnership can use these papers to identify questions about ownership structure and service mix. The papers also raise questions about spending, utilization, and market concentration. Read the full methods and limitations, then compare the study’s specialties and markets with your own. Use the evidence to structure due diligence and professional advice, not as a forecast of proceeds, operating performance, or patient volume.

FTC and state attorney general public actions

The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general publish enforcement announcements, complaints, settlement documents, and other public records involving competition and business conduct. The FTC website is a starting point for federal material; state attorney general websites provide state-specific actions and documents. These sources report allegations, procedural developments, or agency findings depending on the document. An announcement of a complaint is not the same as a final decision, so identify the matter’s status and link to the primary filing before describing it. Public enforcement actions can help an owner understand which market structures or transaction practices have drawn scrutiny, but they do not establish that a different practice or deal violates the law. Owners can use the records to prepare focused questions for competition counsel when evaluating an affiliation, acquisition, exclusivity arrangement, or local consolidation. Separate factual descriptions from legal conclusions, and verify that later procedural events have not changed the status reported in an older release.

State medical board and corporate practice rules

State medical boards publish licensing and professional regulations, while state law and official guidance address who may own or control medical practices. The Federation of State Medical Boards provides information about state boards and physician regulation, but corporate practice rules are state-specific and may come from statutes, regulations, board opinions, or court decisions. There is no single national percentage or universal ownership rule that can safely be applied to every state. The relevant issue may depend on the entity, services, governance, fee arrangements, and how clinical decisions are controlled. An owner planning a new entity, management agreement, or transaction can use board and state government materials to identify the authorities counsel should review. Verify the current primary legal text for the state where the practice operates; summaries may omit exceptions or recent changes. These links are useful entry points for locating official sources and understanding state regulation. They do not replace state-specific legal analysis of a proposed structure.

Ob-Gyn group conditions from CMS enrollment data

The CMS Doctors and Clinicians National Downloadable File records Medicare enrollment information for clinicians and group practice identifiers. An analysis of that file counted 4,095 group IDs listing at least one Medicare-enrolled clinician with OB-GYN as a primary specialty, and 35,387 OB-GYN clinicians across those IDs. The distribution reported was 1,183 IDs with one OB-GYN (28%), 1,392 with two to four (33%), 708 with five to nine (17%), 496 with 10 to 24 (12%), and 316 with 25 or more (7%). The 50 largest IDs accounted for about 20% of counted clinicians; leading state counts included California 336, Texas 297, and New York 292. These are counts of enrollment identifiers, not a census of practices: one organization may have multiple IDs, and groups outside Medicare enrollment are not represented. Owners can use the results to understand the shape of Medicare-enrolled groups and formulate local questions about group size or competition. The counts do not establish market share, ownership, patient volume, or financial performance.

Figures are presented for business context. They do not replace advice from qualified professional advisers.