India Specialty Care 2025 — Market GMV by Category, End-to-End Funnel Economics & the Practo Aesthetics Decision

Largest pool overall

GP ₹0.9–1.1 L Cr

Primary care: 74% of India's 4B+ annual consults

#1 specialist by market GMV

Oncology ₹55–75k Cr

Statistically tied with Gynec (₹55–70k) & Peds (₹55–65k)

Highest end-to-end AOV

Onco ₹1.62 L

Per booked patient, 12-mo value (modeled)

Dermatology market rank

#10 of 12

₹18–28k Cr — each top-5 specialist category is 2.3–2.8× larger

…but #1 platform-capturable

Derm ₹3.08 L

Per 1,000 bookings — 2.1× the next-best category

Verdict (weighted score)

Build · 8.4/10

Aesthetics first; dental fast-follow; IVF = partner

Reading this page: HIGH = company filings / government / listed-co results · MEDIUM = credible industry reports & top-tier press · LOW = market-research-vendor estimates · MODEL = our triangulated estimate — the funnel conversions and capturable-GMV figures are modeled, not measured; directional rankings are robust, absolute values carry ±30–40% uncertainty. Definitions: market GMV = consumer spend on services in the category (consults + diagnostics + procedures + hospitalization; excludes retail pharmacy); platform-capturable = the slice a booking platform can route and monetize.

Q1Market GMV by category — India, 2025

Services GMV per specialty, triangulated from three independent anchor sets: (a) hospital-chain specialty revenue mixes from FY25 investor filings (Max, Apollo, Fortis — HIGH), (b) the CRISIL healthcare-delivery market (₹6.3 lakh Cr FY24 → ≈₹7.0 lakh Cr FY25 — HIGH) and Praxis outpatient market (US$26B FY21, 13% CAGR — MEDIUM), and (c) vertical market studies (LOW, used only as cross-checks). Ranges are deliberate — point estimates would be false precision.

Which specialty has the highest market GMV? Counting primary care, General Physician is the largest pool (₹0.9–1.1 lakh Cr) — GPs take 63% of India's consultation spend and 74% of its 4B+ annual consults (Praxis). Among specialist categories: Oncology ranks #1 by midpoint (₹55–75k Cr), but its range overlaps Gynecology+OB+IVF (₹55–70k) and Pediatrics (₹55–65k) — treat the three as statistically tied, with Cardiology (₹50–62k) and Orthopaedics (₹48–60k) just behind. Dermatology — the category behind the aesthetics question — ranks #10 of 12 (₹18–28k Cr); each top-5 specialist category is 2.3–2.8× its size. If category prioritisation were decided on market GMV alone, Practo Aesthetics would lose. Section Q3 shows why that would be the wrong way to decide.

Market GMV ranking — ₹ '000 Cr, 2025 (bars = low–high range, tick = midpoint)

Bar color = dominant evidence grade behind the estimate:filing/govt-anchoredindustry-report-anchoredderivation-only · teal = dermatology (comparison anchor)

Full table — click any column to sort

Specialty	GMV 2025 (₹ Cr)	Mid (US$ B)	× Derm	Growth (CAGR)	Grade	Primary anchors

Anchors: Max FY25 gross IP revenue mix — Onco 25.8% (+31% YoY), Cardiac 10.7%, Ortho 10.4% (+30%), Neuro 9.3%, ObGyn&Peds 7.3% (+36%), Gastro 5.0%; Apollo FY25 IP mix — Cardio 19%, Onco 17%, Neuro 10%, Ortho 10%, Gastro 6%; Fortis FY25 — focus specialties (Onco+Neuro+Cardiac+Gastro+Ortho+Renal) = 62% of hospital revenue. CRISIL delivery market ₹6.3 L Cr FY24; IPD ≈ 71% of hospital revenue. Praxis: outpatient US$26B FY21 / 4B+ consults / GP 63% by value. Vertical cross-checks: dental US$2.5B organized (Nexdigm), IVF ≈US$1B (LoEstro/IMARC), aesthetics US$0.65–2.0B (IMARC/GVR — 3× spread flagged), mental-health services ₹8–15k Cr (after stripping IMARC's US$20.8B burden-inclusive figure).

Honesty box — why the ranges are wide: India has no census of specialty-level consumer spend. ENT and Psychiatry have no investable-grade services sizing at all (both are derivation-only, LOW). Vendor figures that bundle drugs/devices/imputed burden (e.g. "oncology market US$11.7B", "mental health US$20.8B") were systematically stripped back to services GMV — they run 2–4× realizable services spend. Cross-foot: the 12 midpoints sum to ₹5.5 lakh Cr = 79% of the ≈₹7 lakh Cr FY25 delivery market; the residual 21% (ophthalmology, urology/renal & dialysis, pulmonology, general surgery, transplants, others) is consistent with chain disclosures.

Q2End-to-end funnel economics — what a booked patient is actually worth

Consultation fees are the smallest part of specialty value. This model follows the money through the full journey you specified: booking (transaction) → % who actually walk in → % converting to diagnostics (+ cost) → % converting to a procedure (+ cost) → repeat rate (+ cost), over a 12-month window per booked patient. Every input is listed with its evidence grade in Methodology; conversions triangulate India studies (prescription audits: investigations advised on 30–64% of OPD scripts; OPD→IPD ≈10–15%; advised-admission acceptance 41–85% by specialty) with global benchmarks where India data doesn't exist (flagged).

Formula: 12-month value per booking = show% × [consult fee + (dx% × dx basket ₹) + (proc% × blended procedure ₹) + (repeat visits × repeat ₹)]. AOV here = end-to-end annual order value of one booked patient, not a consult fee. All outputs MODEL.

End-to-end AOV per booked patient — base case (₹, 12-month value)

Oncology (₹1.62 L) is cropped for readability — its bar value is shown on the label. Teal = dermatology. The consult fee alone (dark segment) is just 3–6% of end-to-end value in procedure-led specialties (0.6% in oncology) and ~20% even in consult-led GP/psychiatry — pricing category bets on consult fees alone understates dermatology 12× and oncology 124×.

Funnel explorer — per 100 booked transactions

Full funnel table — base case (click headers to sort) · all cells MODEL

Specialty	Show %	Consult ₹	→Dx %	Dx ₹	→Proc %	Proc ₹ (blended)	Repeat visits	Repeat ₹/visit	AOV/booking ₹	AOV/walk-in ₹	× Derm

Blended procedure ₹ = probability-weighted mix within the converting cohort, e.g. Cardiology = 45% angiography-only ₹40k + 45% PCI ₹2.6L + 10% CABG ₹4.5L; Ortho = 8% surgery ₹1.55L (arthroscopy/TKR/spine) + 11% non-surgical intervention ₹9k; Derm = medical-derm minor procedures ₹3–8k majority + aesthetics courses (laser-hair-removal package ₹45k, GFC/PRP course ₹25–35k, scar-laser course ₹30k, botulinum ₹15k/sitting, hair transplant ₹85k minority). Pediatrics: private vaccination (IAP schedule, ₹20–35k year-1) is carried in the repeat layer, not procedures.

Comparison to dermatology (base case): Cardiology (₹18.3k) and Gynecology (₹18.1k) book ~1.8× derm's end-to-end AOV; Ortho 1.3×, Neuro 1.4×; Oncology 15.8×. Below derm: Gastro 0.95×, Peds 0.75×, ENT 0.59×, Dentistry 0.58×, Psychiatry 0.57×, GP 0.17×. Derm's mid-table AOV is not the point — its capture profile is (Q3): ~92% of derm's end-to-end value sits beyond the first consult (procedures ~50%, repeat courses/sessions ~42%), paid cash at clinics that a platform can package and take-rate — vs cardio/onco value locked inside insurer-settled hospital bills.

Q3The inversion — total market vs platform-capturable GMV

Market GMV answers "where is healthcare money". A platform decision needs a different question: "which rupees can a booking platform actually route and monetize?" Three structural filters — % out-of-pocket (insurer/govt-settled spend resists take-rates), % planned & discovery-led (emergencies and referral-locked care aren't bookable), and digital-discovery propensity (who searches for this care online) — invert the ranking. All multipliers are structural estimates MODEL, anchored on payor disclosures (Apollo FY25: insurance 44% / self-pay 41%; Fortis: TPA 37% / cash 34%) and NHA out-of-pocket data.

Platform-serviceable GMV pool (₹ Cr)
= market mid × OOP% × planned% × digital propensity

Platform-capturable revenue per 1,000 bookings (₹)
= demand mix × end-to-end AOV × feasible take-rate

Addressability workings — every multiplier shown · MODEL

Specialty	Market mid (₹ Cr)	× OOP	× Planned	× Digital	= Serviceable (₹ Cr)	Demand mix %	Take-rate	Capturable /1,000 bkgs (₹)

Demand mix = share of online consultations by specialty. Anchor: Practo Insights — GP + Dermatology + Gynecology together = 51% of all online consults (Mar–May 2020, 5 Cr users; the last published platform-wide split: GP ≈26%, Derm ≈20%, Gynec ≈16%); remaining specialties modeled from Practo's Apr-2024 top-volume list (GP, Derm, Gynec, Peds, ENT) MEDIUM — flagged 2020-vintage. Take-rates are strategic estimates: 15% on cash aesthetics packages vs 2–5% lead-gen fees on insurer-settled hospital procedures (consistent with Pristyn/HexaHealth package economics vs hospital referral fees).

The inversion in one line: Dermatology is #10 of 12 by market GMV (₹23k Cr mid) but #1 by capturable revenue per 1,000 platform bookings (₹3.08 L — 2.1× Gynecology, 4.9× Psychiatry, 6.1× Dentistry, 7.0× the GP pool that dominates raw demand). It is the only specialty scoring ≥0.85 on all three addressability filters: 95% out-of-pocket, ~90% planned, top-3 digital demand. Oncology — the biggest specialist market — collapses to near-last (₹16k per 1,000 bookings): 0.5% of platform demand, 35% OOP, referral-locked. High market GMV ≠ high platform GMV.

Q4Should Practo build Practo Aesthetics — or category-build another specialty first?

Scored across 9 dimensions with disclosed weights. Every cell cites the data behind it (hover/footnotes below). Candidates = the realistic category plays; GP excluded (it is the platform's existing core, not a new category bet).

Decision matrix — weighted scores /10 · MODEL (scores), data per footnote

Candidate	Serviceable pool w 15%	Growth w 10%	End-to-end AOV w 10%	Repeat annuity w 15%	Cash-pay w 10%	Existing demand fit w 15%	Competitive whitespace w 10%	Supply standardizable w 10%	Regulatory w 5%	Weighted

Cell evidence: ① Pool/AOV/repeat scores map to Q2–Q3 model outputs. ② Growth: aesthetics sub-segments 12–26% CAGR (fillers procedures +26%/yr 2019→23 ISAPS-India; hair-transplant market ~20%+; Kaya anti-ageing +46% YoY FY25) vs dental 8–10%, IVF 13–16% but cycle volumes flat at the largest chain (ICRA, Sep-2025). ③ Demand fit: Derm top-3 online specialty (51% trio share, Practo 2020); Gynec #3; Practo US launch (Jan 2026) reports strongest adoption in dental and mental health. ④ Whitespace: largest organized aesthetics chain Kaya = ₹217 Cr revenue FY25 after 20+ years, barely break-even; Oliva ₹114 Cr; Bodycraft ₹130–135 Cr (+35–42%); category VC funding $38M cumulative. Dental: Clove ₹378 Cr, 650+ clinics. IVF: Indira ₹1,630 Cr (IPO-approved), Birla 65+ centres, Nova ~70 — consolidated. Surgery aggregation: Pristyn ₹601 Cr revenue / ₹381 Cr loss FY24 — negative proof. Mental health: Amaha ₹31 Cr — open but tiny. ⑤ Regulatory: CDSCO notice May 18, 2026 — injectables are not cosmetics; demand forced into verified-medical settings (tailwind for a verified-doctor platform; safety-liability risk priced into the 7, not a 9). ⑥ Cash-pay: aesthetics/dental ~95% OOP; cosmetic procedures uninsurable by design; vs ortho ~45%, cardio ~40%, onco ~35% OOP (Apollo/Fortis payor mixes + scheme coverage).

Verdict

Yes — build Practo Aesthetics (8.4/10), but build it as a demand-router + trust layer on top of existing clinics, not as owned clinics. Fund dental as the fast-follow (6.7), partner — don't build — in IVF (6.7), attach mental health to existing funnels (6.7), and do not category-build ortho/onco/cardio (≤5.1).

The case does not rest on market size — dermatology is a bottom-3 market and anyone pitching aesthetics on TAM is overselling. It rests on capture: aesthetics is the only category where India-scale demand already sits on Practo's platform, ~95% of spend is cash, ~90% is planned, repeat behaviour is structural (laser courses 6–8 sessions, botulinum 3–4×/yr), no organized competitor has passed ₹250 Cr, and a May-2026 regulation just pushed the grey market toward exactly the asset Practo owns: a verified-doctor graph with 5 lakh+ doctors and 1,000+ audited establishments.

Why build it — the data

Capturable economics lead every alternative by 2×+: ₹3.08 L per 1,000 bookings vs Gynec ₹1.44 L, Psych ₹0.63 L, Dental ₹0.50 L MODEL. Driver: 15%+ take-rates are realistic on cash packages (LHR ₹45k, GFC course ₹25–35k, botulinum ₹15k/sitting) vs 2–5% lead fees on insurer-settled surgery.
The demand is already Practo's: GP+Derm+Gynec = 51% of online consults; derm ≈20% — #2 specialty (Practo Insights, 2020 — last published split) HIGH for the period. Platform consult frequency rose to 4.1/user/yr in CY2024 HIGH. Zero new-demand CAC for the first foothold.
Repeat annuity, cash-settled: modeled 2.6 repeat visits/yr at ₹2,400 blended; clinical norms: laser hair removal 6–8 sessions, botulinum every 3–4 months, GFC/PRP 4–8 sessions HIGH (clinical) — the closest thing healthcare has to a subscription.
Regulatory moat, dated May 18, 2026: CDSCO — injectables (botulinum, HA fillers, glutathione, skin boosters) are drugs, not cosmetics; salon/grey-market supply must migrate to qualified doctors HIGH. Organized, verified-doctor channels are the designated winners (Business Standard, Jun 2026). Practo's audit + verification stack is the exact compliance product the market now needs.
Whitespace with proof of demand: market growing 12–26% by sub-segment; Kaya anti-ageing +46% YoY HIGH; yet the largest chain is ₹217 Cr after 20 years and the category has $38M lifetime VC — fragmentation (35,000 clinics, ~90% unorganized) without a discovery/quality layer MEDIUM. So-Young (China) proved the marketplace model globally; India's equivalent seat is empty.
It fits the IPO story Practo must tell: FY25 India GMV flat at ₹3,500 Cr, revenue ₹234 Cr, first profitable year (op. EBITDA ₹15 Cr, CM 46%) HIGH. Growth narrative currently leans on UAE/US. Aesthetics adds high-margin, transactional, India-side GMV — margin-accretive, unlike consult-fee GMV.

Why not — the steelman (read before committing)

The TAM is genuinely small: ₹18–28k Cr, #10 of 12. Winning 5% of the serviceable pool (₹16.7k Cr) ≈ ₹840 Cr GMV — +24% on FY25 GMV. Material, not transformational. If the IPO needs headline GMV scale fast, big-ticket surgical categories route more rupees per deal.
The decisive numbers are modeled, not measured: 28% consult→procedure and ₹26k blended course value are triangulated (US medspa consult→treatment 50–70%; but KPMG: 70–80% of Indian derm visits are medical, not cosmetic). If Practo's internal derm conversion is <10%, the capturable advantage halves — instrument before you brand.
Category graveyard is real: Kaya ~break-even after two decades; Dr Batra's stagnant (₹170 Cr); the 2010s dental-chain bust shows organized single-specialty retail can fail for a decade straight. Counter: those are clinic-economics failures (CAC + trust); a platform monetizes demand-routing, not chairs — but the precedent caps confidence.
D2C is intercepting the same demand upstream: Traya ₹338 Cr (back to losses, ₹1.08 marketing per ₹1 revenue), Mosaic Wellness ₹736 Cr HIGH — tele-derm funnels capture hair/skin intent before it ever searches for a clinic. Practo must win on doctor-grade trust and outcomes, never on ad spend.
Brand-safety liability is asymmetric: IADVL documents deaths from quack hair transplants; Telangana inspections found unqualified injectors MEDIUM-HIGH. One botched marketplace-routed procedure attacks the core medical brand that the other 80% of Practo monetizes. Mitigation (derm/plastic-surgeon-only supply, audits, outcome tracking) is mandatory cost, not optional.
Opportunity cost at a bad time: management bandwidth is committed to UAE/US + H2-2026 IPO; category building is an 18–24-month grind. Discretionary spend is also cyclical and Tier-1-concentrated (72% of online-consult users are Tier-1).

What would flip the verdict

Internal funnel data beats this model: if measured derm consult→paid-procedure <10% or end-to-end AOV <₹8k → dentistry becomes #1 (its 47% case-acceptance and 85% show rate are the most reliable conversions in the entire model, and Practo's own US launch reports dental as its strongest category).
If the objective is maximum IPO GMV, not margin: reactivate Practo Care Surgeries in ortho/gynec — bigger tickets route more GMV faster. The warning label: Pristyn burned ₹381 Cr in FY24 on that exact model and is pivoting to owned hospitals; PCS itself has gone publicly silent since 2022.
CDSCO enforcement fizzles: if injectable enforcement stalls by mid-2027, the grey market persists and the trust moat narrows — re-score Regulatory from 7 to 5, verdict drops to ~8.0 but still leads.
A horizontal rival moves first: Apollo 24|7 or Tata 1mg launching verified aesthetics would erase the whitespace premium (watch: both already merchandise derm consults as flagship categories).

Recommended sequencing — gate-checked, capital-light

Phase 0 · 0–90 days

Instrument the existing derm funnel: measure real consult→procedure %, AOV, repeat, by city. No brand, no spend.

Gate: conversion ≥15% and AOV ≥₹8k confirmed

Phase 1 · Qtr 2–3

Aesthetics discovery vertical: standardized packages (LHR, GFC/PRP, peels, scar laser, botulinum), price transparency, verified-dermatologist badge, top-8 metros. Monetize: booking fee + package take-rate.

Gate: take-rate ≥12% holds; repeat ≥2 sessions/6mo

Phase 2 · Qtr 4–6

"Practo Aesthetics" brand layer: curated partner clinics, financing (reuse PCS playbook), outcome tracking (extend published PROMs), CDSCO-compliance badge as the trust product.

Gate: ₹150–200 Cr annualized GMV; NPS ≥ core

Phase 3 · Yr 2+

Only if take-rate data supports: flagship/franchise formats. In parallel: dental fast-follow (same playbook, case-acceptance economics), IVF via partnerships with Indira/Birla/Nova — never a build.

Decision point, not commitment

Methodology & assumptions

Model definition

12-month value per booked transaction = show% × [consult fee + dx% × dx basket + proc% × blended procedure value + repeat visits × repeat value]. Cohort = new patients booking via a platform; window = 12 months; multi-session treatments (laser courses, chemo cycles, IVF) counted once at committed-course value in the procedure stage, with subsequent-cycle/maintenance spend in the repeat layer (no double-counting). Pediatric private vaccination is carried entirely in the repeat layer. All arithmetic computed programmatically; low/base/high scenarios move conversions and prices together (conservative ↔ aggressive).

Evidence behind every funnel stage

Stage	India evidence	Global fallback (used where India absent)	How applied
Booking → walk-in	"Up to 30%" OPD no-show claim (practice-mgmt vendor) LOW; no peer-reviewed India platform study exists — flagged gap	Global no-show ~23% (systematic review) HIGH; US by specialty: dental 15%, OBGYN 18%, primary 19%, onco 25%, neuro 26%, derm 30%, peds 30% LOW-MED; prepaid/tele booking cuts no-show (OR 0.40–0.61) HIGH	67–85% by specialty: US specialty pattern re-centred on India's ~70–75% paid-booking baseline
Consult → diagnostic	Investigations advised on 60–64% of prescriptions (tertiary audits), ~30% (secondary, MH) MEDIUM	US: labs at 29–40.5% of visits, imaging 11–14% (CDC/NAMCS) HIGH	12% (psych) to 92% (onco), clinically skewed within the India 30–64% band
Diagnostic basket ₹	2025 lab-chain/aggregator prices: CBC ₹200–300, echo ₹1.5–3.5k, TMT ₹0.8–1.6k, MRI brain ₹2.75–12k, endoscopy ₹1.8–8k, PET-CT ₹10–30k, audiometry ₹0.5–1.8k, OPG ₹285–640 HIGH	—	Blended basket per specialty (not every patient gets every test); aggregator-discount-weighted
Consult → procedure	OPD→IPD ≈10–15% (industry norm) MEDIUM; advised-admission acceptance by specialty 41–85% (single-hospital study, n=245) LOW-MED; TMH onco refusal 2.7%/abandonment 1% HIGH	Ortho referral→surgery 23–28% (meta-analysis) HIGH; colonoscopy referral→scope 32.5% (NZ); cardio consult→cath 10–30%, cath→revasc 43–46% (UK); dental case acceptance 50–60% (US); aesthetics consult→treatment 50–70% medspa / 38% academic (US); IVF consult→cycle 30–50% (US)	2% (GP) to 47% (dental); derm blended to 28% because 70–80% of Indian derm OPD is medical, not cosmetic (KPMG)
Procedure ₹ (blended)	2025 package prices: TKR ₹1.8–4.5L, PCI ₹1.5–4.5L, CABG ₹2.5–6L, C-section ₹1–1.8L (mid-range), IVF cycle ₹1–2.5L, lap chole ₹40k–1.5L, FESS ₹25–80k, tonsillectomy ₹25–90k, RCT ₹3–12k, implant ₹20–50k, LHR full-body package ₹1.2–2L, hair transplant ₹55k–2.5L, botulinum ₹12.5–25k/50U, chemo ₹35k–1L/cycle, full private cancer treatment ₹10–20L HIGH/MED	—	Probability-weighted mix inside the converting cohort (weights shown under the funnel table); aggregator floors run 20–60% below corporate-hospital invoices — mid-points used
Repeat layer	Practo platform: 3.2 consults/user/yr (2023) → 4.1 (CY2024); hypertension 5.1, diabetes 3.9, cardiology 2.5 HIGH (platform-reported); psychiatry first-visit dropout 38–60% (Rohtak/Gujarat studies) HIGH; IAP schedule ≈10–13 visits in first 2 yrs HIGH; private year-1 vaccination ₹20–35k HIGH	Dental recall 55–75% at 6 months (US/CA) MED; LHR 6–8 sessions, botulinum every 3–4 months HIGH (clinical norms); cardio follow-ups ~80% of specialty visit volume (US)	0.9 (dental) to 4.5 (peds, vax-inclusive) additional visits/yr × blended repeat value
Market GMV	Chain FY25 specialty mixes (Max/Apollo/Fortis filings) HIGH × CRISIL delivery market ₹6.3 L Cr FY24 HIGH + Praxis outpatient US$26B FY21 @13% CAGR MED	Vendor vertical studies as cross-checks only LOW	Ranges; midpoints cross-foot to 79% of delivery market (residual = specialties outside the 12)
Addressability & take-rates	Apollo FY25 payor mix: insurance 44%/self-pay 41%/govt 10%; Fortis: TPA 37%/cash 34%; NHA: OOPE 39.4% of total health expenditure HIGH as inputs	—	The multipliers themselves are structural judgments MODEL — shown cell-by-cell in Q3 so you can re-run with your own

Known biases — against aesthetics

2020-vintage demand mix: the GP/Derm/Gynec = 51% split is lockdown-period tele-consult data; derm's true 2025 share of bookings may be lower. No newer platform-wide split has been published — Practo's internal number should replace it.
US medspa conversion (50–70%) measures aesthetic-intent walk-ins, not mixed derm OPD; we blended down to 28%, but if Indian platform-booked derm skews acne/infection Rx-only, true conversion could be 10–15%.
Metro concentration: 72% of online-consult users are Tier-1; aesthetics skews further premium — the serviceable pool may be effectively 6–8 metros, not India.

Known biases — for aesthetics (model is conservative here)

Grey-market formalization upside excluded: CDSCO enforcement shifts currently-unmeasured salon/grey spend into organized GMV — our ₹18–28k Cr range counts little of it.
D2C spend sits outside our services GMV: Traya+Mosaic alone bill >₹1,000 Cr/yr of derm-adjacent demand that a doctor-grade platform can intercept.
KPMG pegs derm pharma alone at ₹16k+ Cr (2025): services markets typically exceed their pharma shadow — our services range may be floor-biased. Medical tourism for hair transplant also excluded.
Compounding caution: multiplying stage estimates compounds error — absolutes ±30–40%; rankings are robust because errors correlate across specialties.

What this is not: this analysis uses zero Practo-internal data — no real booking→show rates, no measured consult→procedure conversion, no actual category mix of FY25-26. Phase 0 of the sequencing exists precisely to replace the four highest-leverage modeled numbers (derm show rate, derm proc-conversion, derm AOV, derm repeat) with measured ones before any capital is committed. Research and verification date: June 11, 2026.

Primary sources