Should You Add a Provider or New Service Line?

The clearest expansion signals are sustained provider utilization above 95%, new-patient lead times above 8 weeks, financial capacity to absorb a 6-12 month ramp, and market demand confirmed by referral and inquiry volume. Practices with utilization below 85% typically recover capacity through scheduling, no-show reduction, and workflow improvement before adding capacity makes economic sense.

MGMA practice-management data places typical primary-care provider ramp-to-full-schedule at 6-12 months, with specialty ramps varying based on referral patterns. The ramp economics are why expansion requires financial slack: the practice carries the loaded cost of the new provider for months before the schedule fills. Practices with tight cash should optimize first.

Yes. Service-line expansion (aesthetics in a derm practice, infusion in a rheumatology practice, etc.) is often higher-margin growth that uses existing provider time differently, rather than adding provider capacity. A service line with confirmed patient-panel demand can outperform a like-for-like provider hire on unit economics. Both paths require the operational and financial foundations of capacity expansion.

The clearest market signals are sustained new-patient inquiry volume above current capacity, competitor practices at capacity or with long lead times, demographic growth in the service area, and unmet demand for specific services (often surfaced through patient requests or referring-provider conversations). Without a clear market signal, expansion often underperforms despite strong internal utilization.

Answer sequence does not change the result. The tool weighs seven inputs independently: provider utilization rate, new-patient lead time, available physical space, financial cushion for a 6-12 month ramp, confirmed market demand, recruiting realism for the role or service, and specific service-line opportunity. Utilization and lead time carry the most weight because MGMA practice-growth research shows those two inputs correctly classify the expand-versus-optimize question in a large majority of cases. The remaining five inputs refine the recommendation within the path those two establish. Changing your utilization answer after seeing the initial result will produce a different recommendation; changing your answer on market demand typically will not, unless the utilization picture changes with it.

MGMA Practice Operations data consistently shows that practices under 5 providers most often outsource billing because volume rarely justifies a full-time billing hire and the per-transaction or percentage-of-collections pricing model handles variability better.

Three signals matter most in practice-acquisition research: clean accrual-adjusted financials with normalized owner compensation, distributed revenue production across providers (not heavy owner-dependence), and well-documented operational systems.

Google Health Industry research consistently shows the majority of new-patient acquisition journeys start with a local Google search, followed by a review check on Google Business Profile or healthcare-specific platforms, then a website visit before the patient calls.

The highest-leverage moves are usually moving intake to digital forms completed before the visit (frees front-desk capacity and shortens wait times), automating eligibility verification 1-3 days ahead (catches issues before the visit), and collecting copay plus estimated patient portion at point of service (materially improves collection rate).

No. This survey is operations and experience only, scheduling, wait time, front desk, communication, facility, recommendation likelihood, and operational improvements. It does not collect symptoms, diagnoses, or any clinical or health information.