Which patients are you actually attracting?

The Patient Match Score shares its underlying model with the CMT Patient Compass, built from Concierge Medicine Today's own patient-inquiry survey, 2013–2024. Your answers are self-reported and not independently verified. This tool provides a directional self-assessment only and does not guarantee any outcome, result, or accuracy, and should not be relied upon as the sole basis for a business decision. Nothing here is medical, legal, financial, or tax advice; consult a qualified professional before making decisions based on this or any CMT tool. © 2007–2026 Concierge Medicine Today, LLC. All rights reserved.

What to do with this. Treat your results as a starting conversation, not a conclusion. Before making changes to your marketing, pricing, insurance participation, or business structure based on this tool, consult a qualified professional, such as a healthcare attorney, a CPA or financial advisor, or a practice management consultant, who can evaluate your specific situation, your local market, and your actual patient data. This tool does not know your practice, your patients, your finances, your contracts, or your regulatory environment, and it isn't a substitute for that kind of review.

Assumption of risk and limitation of liability. This tool is provided "as is," for general informational and self-assessment purposes only, without warranties of any kind, express or implied, including as to its accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose. By using it, you acknowledge that any decisions you make, and any actions you take or don't take, based on its output are entirely your own, and you assume all risk associated with that use. Concierge Medicine Today, LLC, its owners, employees, and affiliates disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, or claim, direct or indirect, arising from or related to your use of this tool or reliance on its results.

What the percentage is. Your ten answers place your practice at a point on the same two axes used to build the Patient Compass: how insurance-friendly your positioning is, and whether your positioning speaks to patients who are happy with their last doctor or ready for a change. Each of the four patient types sits at a fixed point on those same two axes, based on real patient survey responses. The percentage is how close your point is to each of the four, converted into a share of 100.

The best-grounded question here is question 3. Whether patients want claims filed is the single cleanest signal in CMT's entire dataset for insurance orientation: patients who say it matters a lot average 4.22 out of 5 on insurance importance, those who don't care average 2.81, those who say no average 1.69, across 1,045 real responses. Those point values come directly from those averages.

Question 4 is also well-grounded. Patients whose top priority is cost average 2.37 out of 5 on insurance importance, meaningfully lower than patients focused on convenience or relationship, who average 3.26 to 3.36, across 665 responses. Cost-driven patients lean toward wanting independence from insurance, not toward it, which is why that answer nudges the score the direction it does.

Question 7 is grounded, on a smaller, cleaned sample. Patients switching from another concierge or membership practice rate their current doctor's trust and likability meaningfully higher, 4.17 and 4.27 out of 5, than patients switching from a traditional insurance-based practice, 3.42 and 3.45, across 652 responses after cleaning a free-text field.

Question 8 counts less than the direct insurance questions. The Patient Compass data shows Coverage Keepers and Careful Movers, the two insurance-friendly types, skew noticeably older, which also lines up with a plain fact: Medicare eligibility starts at 65. Generation is a correlational nudge, not a direct statement of your own positioning.

Questions 9 and 10 are the softest signals in this tool, and we're telling you that plainly. Air quality importance shows a real but small gradient on insurance orientation, 2.82 to 3.43 across a 1,806-patient sample, not a strong effect. Surgical or specialty need shows a real but thin gradient, 3.22 to 3.75, and two of the three response groups had under 40 people in them. Both are included because they're genuinely in the data, not because they're strong, and both carry the smallest weight in the calculation.

Fields we tested and left out entirely. Unresolved medical debt had only 50 responses, all "no," no usable variance. What patients want more of from their doctor had only 134 responses. How patients found the practice had a huge sample, nearly 7,000, but no clean, consistent pattern once broken down by channel. Whether patients preferred an M.D., D.O., N.P., or P.A. was too fragmented across overlapping multi-select answers to build a clean question on. We checked geography too, state-by-state, and found no meaningful pattern across the four types. None of these four made it into the tool.

Why it's not a headcount. A 64% next to a patient type does not mean "64% of your patients will be this type." It means your answers are considerably closer to that type's profile than to the other three.

Why two practices can get the same result. This tool scores your stated positioning, not your actual patient roster. The Patient Compass plan for using this includes tagging real patient intake data over time, the only way to move from a positioning estimate to an actual measurement.

The math, plainly. We measure the distance from your point to each of the four type-positions, turn shorter distances into higher weights, then scale all four weights so they add up to 100%. No hidden variable, no fitting to outcome data.