Problems › What Is My Business Actually Worth? › HealthTech & Digital Health
Valuation is mostly a question about the quality of the earnings, not the size of them. This page works through it for digital health companies specifically — including an unedited excerpt from a real analysis of a digital health company.
Valuation is mostly a question about the quality of the earnings, not the size of them. What makes this harder for digital health companies is structural: outcomes risk is being signed faster than the company can learn whether it can carry it — a 12-month measurement window against an 11-month sales cycle. Any credible answer therefore has to hold at-risk revenue share and engagement rate in the same view, which is exactly where most internal analysis stops because the two live in different systems.
Owners tend to think about valuation as a multiple applied to profit. Buyers think about it as a judgement on how much of that profit survives their ownership — which is why two businesses with identical earnings sell for very different numbers.
The drivers are consistent: how concentrated the revenue is, how much of it recurs, how dependent the business is on the owner, and how defensible the margin looks over the next few years. Each of those moves the multiple more than an incremental point of profit moves the base.
Which means the practical question is usually not "what is it worth" but "which of these is depressing the multiple, and can it be fixed in the time available before a sale".
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ You are within a few years of a transaction and have never had the earnings normalised
✓ A large share of profit depends on relationships held by the owner
✓ Revenue is largely non-recurring and concentrated
The move that usually makes it worse. Optimising profit in the year before a sale while leaving the multiple drivers untouched, which usually adds less value than fixing one of them.
It is for you if you run or finance a digital health company and you are within a few years of a transaction and have never had the earnings normalised. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a digital health company. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Vantabridge Health, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $62M ARR, 340,000 enrolled members.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Quick Market Scan · sample company profile
The move. Convert 180 existing employer relationships into $11.7M incremental outcomes-contingent revenue by Month 24 without new-plan procurement.
The leak it closes. $6.5M device leakage reduced by shifting kit cost to employer opt-in, improving gross margin 7 points on employer cohort
The assumption it rests on. 180 employers accept outcomes-contingent terms at 45% at-risk share — the engine put the probability at 0.7.
| Investment required | $0.6–0.9M total (2 FTE employer specialists @ $180K fully loaded each × 18 months + $120K enablement tools) |
| Expected return | 13.0× on $0.9M investment ($11.7M incremental revenue by Month 24) |
| Revenue, year 1 | $3.9M incremental employer outcomes revenue |
| Revenue, year 2 | $11.7M cumulative incremental employer outcomes revenue |
| Revenue, year 3 | $18.5M cumulative if employer cohort grows 15% YoY |
| Exit criteria | Terminate move if employer conversion rate <25% by Month 12 OR if employer at-risk share demanded exceeds 50% OR if device-kit leakage reduction <10 points by Month 18. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Growth Portfolio Framework, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For digital health companies it works through at-risk revenue share, engagement rate, gross margin and logo churn, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Ranges by sector are easy to find and are the least useful part of the answer. Where you land inside the range is decided by concentration, recurrence, owner dependence and margin defensibility.
Two to three years if the aim is to move the multiple, because that is how long recurring revenue and reduced owner dependence take to become visible in the numbers.
It depends on the buyer. Financial buyers pay for durable cash flow; strategic buyers pay for what the business does to their own position. Knowing which you are preparing for changes what to fix.
Materially, yes. Outcomes risk is being signed faster than the company can learn whether it can carry it — a 12-month measurement window against an 11-month sales cycle — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are at-risk revenue share, engagement rate, gross margin, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on at-risk revenue share and engagement rate. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.