The Weekly Checkup · July 14, 2026

The Weekly Checkup: Week of July 6-10, 2026

The Pulse

Only moderate volume this week after the holiday, with 46 announced transactions, Services 24, Technology 22, and 3 platform deals.

🤝 Announced Deals

QIAGEN draws early takeover interest from EQT, Advent, and KKR

QIAGEN NV shares rose approximately 11% Thursday after Bloomberg reported that EQT, Advent, and KKR are among the firms studying a potential acquisition, with some bidders considering at least $50 per share. QIAGEN has been in a formal strategic review since at least January 2026, having retained Moelis and Goldman Sachs to run the process. Q1 2026 revenue came in at $492 million. The company cut its full-year 2026 guidance to $2.11 to $2.13 billion (down from a prior target of at least 5% CER growth) after QuantiFERON immigration testing dropped sharply and U.S. life sciences spending stayed cautious.

My take: At $50 per share, QIAGEN's equity is worth roughly $9.25 billion on approximately 185 million diluted shares. Add estimated net debt of $1.25 billion and the implied enterprise value is approximately $10.5 billion. Against the 2026 revenue guidance midpoint of $2.12 billion and estimated adjusted EBITDA of approximately $665 million (the company's 29.5% adjusted EBIT target plus roughly $100 million in D&A), the implied multiples come out to about 4.95x revenue and 15.8x EBITDA. Neither is cheap for a diagnostics business, and both rest on a recovery argument: the QuantiFERON headwind is immigration policy, which can reverse quickly or not at all, and U.S. life sciences spending has been soft for eighteen months without a visible inflection point. A PE buyer at 15.8x EBITDA on what may be trough earnings is betting on margin expansion through restructuring, or on the view that the revenue weakness is genuinely temporary. QIAGEN's 29.5% guided adjusted EBIT margin for 2026 says the cost structure is in decent shape even at depressed volumes. The sample technology, QIAcuity digital PCR, and Digital Insights platforms are embedded in laboratory workflows in ways that create switching costs. Bio-Techne went at 26.2x EBITDA in Issue #12; Simulations Plus at 16.6x in Issue #11. QIAGEN at 15.8x on trough numbers fits that range, if you share the recovery view.

Blackstone and TPG seek $4 billion-plus for Hologic's GYN Surgical division

Blackstone and TPG, which closed the $18.3 billion Hologic acquisition in April 2026, are reportedly running a sale process for the GYN Surgical division at a $4 billion-plus target. The segment covers NovaSure (endometrial ablation), MyoSure (intrauterine tissue removal), Fluent (fluid management), and the Gynesonics assets. Proceeds would go toward reducing LBO debt.

My take: The Hologic take-private closed in April, and the surgical sale process launched weeks later. That is not portfolio optimization; it is deleveraging under pressure. Blackstone capped withdrawals at its flagship private credit fund last month on redemption demand, and the surgical sale is explicitly described as debt reduction rather than strategic repositioning. On the numbers: the surgical segment generated revenue of roughly $172 million in Q4 fiscal 2025 alone, or around $640 million annualized including Gynesonics. At $4 billion, the implied EV/revenue is approximately 6.25x. Margin is harder to pin down without segment-level EBITDA disclosure, but NovaSure and MyoSure are single-use disposable devices — recurring consumable revenue per procedure, used in high-volume outpatient GYN settings, with physician preference that does not change easily. Applying a 35% to 38% EBITDA margin to $640 million gets you roughly $224 to $243 million in EBITDA, and at $4 billion that implies 16.5x to 17.9x. Brackets those against what we've seen: H.B. Fuller paid 14.3x for Advanced Medical Solutions, Novanta paid 19x for Riverpoint. The Hologic Surgical range sits between them, which is about right for a high-margin procedure-consumables business with good physician loyalty and an installed volume base that isn't going anywhere. The question for buyers is what Hologic Surgical looks like without a parent company.

Ascension agrees to acquire Williamson Health for $700 million

Deal value: $700 million purchase price | EV / Revenue: 2.04x | EV / EBITDA: 13.67x

Williamson Health's Board of Trustees voted unanimously to sell the Franklin, Tennessee community hospital system to Ascension Saint Thomas for $700 million, plus additional capital commitments of $235 million over ten years. FY2025 revenue and EBITDA from the Medicare cost report are $343 million and $51.2 million, respectively (14.9% margin). Net proceeds to Williamson after debt payoff are projected at $477 million. Ascension and HCA both bid $700 million; Ascension won with a larger capital commitment. Closing is expected 2027 or 2028, pending County Commission approval.

My take: Williamson County is the wealthiest county in Tennessee and one of the wealthiest in the country, with a median household income of $135,594, a 50% population increase since 2010, and a demographic profile (predominantly commercially insured, high-income, rapidly growing suburban population) that community hospitals dream about. Medicaid exposure is low by any regional comparison. Franklin has become one of the fastest-growing cities in the Southeast as Nashville's southern corridor fills in with corporate relocations, executive housing, and the employee base that follows. The hospital serving that market has a payer mix that looks nothing like a typical community hospital, which is why the 14.9% EBITDA margin in the cost report is worth taking at face value rather than discounting it.

The bidding dynamic is the most interesting part of this deal. Ascension and HCA both arrived at $700 million. The Williamson Health board then chose based on capital commitment — Ascension's $235 million for facility and EHR improvements plus $140 million for strategic projects over five years against HCA's smaller commitment. That Ascension offered $4 million annually in lieu of property taxes versus HCA's estimated $1.9 million contribution is a detail, but it reflects how urgently both systems wanted this market. HCA is opening a new hospital in Spring Hill (the southern Williamson County corridor) and Williamson Health's board was watching that threat to its own volume. Ascension's bid gives Williamson Health a systemically aligned partner with no competing acute care asset in the immediate market. HCA buying Williamson would have handed them a dominant position in Williamson County while eliminating a competitor. Ascension paying the same price gets a different strategic outcome.

At 2.04x revenue and 13.67x EBITDA, the multiples are rich for a community hospital. They're less surprising for a high-margin, commercially dominated, rapidly growing suburban hospital that two of the largest health systems in the country simultaneously decided was worth $700 million.

Frazier Healthcare Partners acquires MatrixCare from ResMed for $490 million

Deal value: $490 million | EV / Revenue: 2.23x | EV / EBITDA: 8.91x

Frazier Healthcare Partners agreed to acquire MatrixCare, ResMed's cloud-based EHR and care coordination software for post-acute and senior care, for $490 million. Preliminary fiscal 2026 results filed by ResMed show MatrixCare generating approximately $220 million in revenue and $55 million in adjusted operating profit (25% margin).

My take: ResMed bought MatrixCare for $750+ million in 2018 (25.5x EBITDA) with a vision of building the dominant out-of-hospital software ecosystem. Eight years later it is selling for $490 million at 2.23x revenue and 8.91x EBITDA, and the gap between those two prices reflects what actually happened in the intervening period. MatrixCare lost the KLAS top ranking to PointClickCare, which has held it for six consecutive years. It was the slower-growing component of ResMed's Residential Care Software segment, a fact confirmed by ResMed's guidance for high single-digit growth in the remaining segment after MatrixCare's removal. And it now faces a structural question that did not exist in 2018: AI-native tools capable of handling clinical documentation, scheduling, and billing workflows without a legacy EHR architecture are a credible medium-term threat to any traditional post-acute platform, and buyers are discounting multiples accordingly. None of this means Frazier overpaid. At 2.23x revenue on a 15,000-provider customer base with Best in KLAS recognition in home health and hospice, there is a defensible platform here. The question is whether dedicated ownership and aggressive product investment can hold off PointClickCare from above and AI-native competitors from below, which is precisely the kind of operational challenge that a focused PE firm is better positioned to address than a CPAP device company running software as a side business.

Altaris acquires Clarivate Life Sciences and Healthcare business

Deal value: $600 million | EV / Revenue: 1.5x | EV / EBITDA: 5.0x

Altaris agreed to acquire Clarivate's Life Sciences and Healthcare business (Cortellis and Decision Resources Group) for $600 million. The division will operate as an independent pharma data and analytics company. Clarivate's annual report shows the LS&HC segment generated $389.8 million in FY2025 revenue and $119.7 million in adjusted EBITDA. Altaris also owns Simulations Plus (taken private in Issue #11) and Chemical Computing Group.

My take: The 1.5x revenue and 5.0x EBITDA multiples look cheap for a high-margin data business until you see the trend behind them. LS&HC revenue has declined for three consecutive years: $442.8 million in FY2023, $418.9 million in FY2024, $389.8 million in FY2025. Adjusted EBITDA fell 24% over the same period, from $158.3 million to $119.7 million. Clarivate's explanation was consistent across earnings calls: pharma cost-cutting at major clients was trimming data and analytics subscriptions alongside everything else. A business declining at 6% annually does not command a 12x EBITDA multiple.

Altaris is buying a declining-revenue segment with strong current margins, betting it performs better as a standalone platform with focused capital than it did as one of three unrelated Clarivate business units. Combined with Chemical Computing Group and Simulations Plus, the discovery-to-commercial platform logic is coherent: CCG covers molecular design at discovery, Simulations Plus covers PK/PD modeling through regulatory submission, and Cortellis and DRG cover competitive intelligence and commercial analytics at launch. Whether the combination reverses the LS&HC revenue trajectory is the question Altaris will spend the next several years answering.

I tracked 41 additional transactions this week, including Lone Peak Dental Group announcing 11 pediatric dental and orthodontic practices across Georgia and South Carolina in a single release; Bond Vet and Small Door Veterinary merging to form a 55-plus-clinic premium veterinary network across the Northeast and Midwest, a direct follow-on to the Chewy/Modern Animal and Tractor Supply/VIP Petcare discussions in Issues #1 and #8; Vertex completing its Crinetics acquisition for approximately $10 billion; Palomar Health and UC San Diego Health forming a Joint Powers Authority in North San Diego County (an unusual governance structure that sidesteps a conventional hospital change-of-ownership process); Principal Financial acquiring Beam Benefits (digitally native dental and vision benefits, 25,000-plus small business clients); and KKR's formation of Allyntra, a precision-engineered medtech OEM platform built on its Precipart investment. The complete list is available to subscribers.

🏷️ Active Listings: Businesses You Can Actually Buy

Every listing this week is an addiction treatment business and the asks run from 3.56x cash flow to 9.75x. Nearly a three-fold spread inside one category, although a lot of the variation is due to real estate value on the high end.

1. Treatment Center, Minnesota (245G Licensed)

Established and fully licensed 245G co-occurring intensive outpatient provider serving 50-plus active clients across three in-person groups and one telehealth evening program. Operates from a 3,500 square foot treatment facility, which is included in the asking price. Full-time management team in place, with semi-absent owner involvement. Separately, an affiliated company runs 6-plus licensed recovery homes with capacity for up to 44 clients. The housing is not part of the sale, but ownership is willing to contract with a buyer to keep providing it, or to sell it separately.

My take: Two details buried in the listing do most of the work on the 9.75x, the building and the license. The asking price includes the treatment facility, so some unknown slice of $8.75 million is real estate, and until it's appraised nobody knows what the operating business costs. The second is the affiliated recovery homes: six-plus licensed sober homes, 44 beds, carved out of the deal, with the seller offering to keep housing the buyer's clients under contract. A treatment center paying an affiliated sober home operator for housing, while that operator is also a source of clients, is the arrangement EKRA and the state patient brokering statutes were written to catch. It may be entirely clean, but the legal review has to show that before anyone signs anything.

The license is still the reason to look. A 245G program meeting the co-occurring requirements under 245G.20 qualifies for an enhanced payment rate written into statute, and payers and referral sources in Minnesota have moved toward treating the co-occurring model as a requirement rather than a nice-to-have. But Minnesota's SUD reform went live on July 1, eleven days ago: new outpatient billing codes built on 15-minute units, service definitions rewritten against ASAM 4th Edition, and DHS taking over Behavioral Health Fund eligibility determination from the counties and tribes. These are 2024 financials. Don't ask what the program earned. Rebuild it from the bottom at today's census: clients, level of care, units per week, new codes, new rates.

2. Profitable Youth Residential Treatment Facility, Utah

Youth residential treatment facility. The listing copy, in full: "evidence-based programs focus on emotional, behavioral, and academic growth," delivered by "a team of experienced professionals" in "a nurturing environment," with "personalized treatment plans." No bed count, no census, no payer mix, no city, no year established.

My take: The description is brochure copy pasted into a listing field, so we have to supply the context ourselves. Roughly nine out of ten kids in Utah's youth residential treatment centers come from outside Utah, so this is probably not a Utah Medicaid business. It's more likely a national referral business holding a Utah license, and the money comes from educational consultants, out-of-state courts, child welfare placements, and parents writing very large checks. Referral concentration is therefore the first question and possibly the last one: if three consultants drive half the admissions, the earnings leave when those relationships do.

The second question is regulatory. Utah's Office of Licensing has inspected these facilities quarterly since SB 127 passed in 2021, restraint and seclusion have to be documented and reported inside one business day, and chemical restraint requires prior state authorization. The category carries a live litigation tail, with suits against several well-known Utah programs, and Congress has been circling the sector with the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act. At 7.46x, a buyer is paying for a clean record, so pull the licensing file first and confirm one exists.

3. California Behavioral Health Platform (Two Facilities)

Two licensed facilities with a combined 24 residential beds, plus an outpatient component, marketed as a fully integrated platform. The listing cites established management protocols, clinical oversight systems, active insurance contracting relationships, admissions processing, billing operations, and referral network partnerships. Roughly $6.3 million of annual revenue and, in the broker's words, "projected normalized EBITDA exceeding $1.3 million at stabilized census levels." Southern California. Pitched at family offices, private equity groups, and strategic operators.

My take: Read the earnings line again, because it stacks three qualifiers on one number: projected, normalized, at stabilized census. That is not a multiple of anything the business has earned. If census were already stabilized the broker would have said so, which means occupancy today is presumably lower and actual EBITDA presumably smaller. The 21.1% margin, and the 5.49x that falls out of it, are both projections, and the first question in diligence is what the last twelve months produced and at what census. The answer will move the multiple, possibly by a lot.

The licensing needs confirming too. AB 3162 requires every licensable service to be delivered at the street address printed on the license, and a licensee may not transport residents offsite to receive one, so the outpatient component needs its own site and its own authorization before the integrated-platform framing means anything. DHCS also treats a change of ownership as an application rather than a notification, roughly 120 days on a complete packet, and two facilities means two of them. At 1.16x revenue this is the cheapest top line in the set, and if actual earnings land anywhere near the projection, it might be cheap. If the projection is doing the work, it probably isn't.

4. Premier Outpatient Holistic Mental Health and Addiction Treatment, California

Outpatient mental health and addiction recovery center offering partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient, and standard outpatient programming.

My take: Set this next to listing 3 and you have about as clean a controlled experiment as this section is going to produce. Same state, same regulator, same broad category. One asks 1.16x revenue, the other asks 2.03x. Seventy-five percent apart, and the variable is who pays. A 37.6% margin on California outpatient PHP and IOP is a commercial, in-network margin, because commercial per-diems at those levels of care run several multiples of the Medi-Cal fee schedule. Paying a premium for payer mix is defensible.

Which puts the contracts at the center of the deal. They are usually not assignable on their own, since in-network status attaches to the contracting entity and to the credentialed clinicians, so the stock-versus-asset decision is worth more here than anything a buyer wins on price. The other item is CPOM: any non-physician buyer in California structures through an MSO, and if the program runs a medical director prescribing MAT or delivering psychiatric services, the management fee has to survive fair market value scrutiny and is not a rounding error. Assuming the contracts confirm and the DHCS file is clean, 5.40x for a commercial-payer PHP and IOP at a 37% margin is a reasonable place to start.

5. Behavioral Health and Substance Use Treatment Provider, Fayette County, GA

CARF-accredited behavioral health provider delivering outpatient mental health and substance use treatment across Metro Atlanta, serving 650-plus clients weekly. The broker cites a strong community presence, an experienced leadership team, recurring revenue sources, and significant growth potential. Listed by Transworld, filed under medical practices rather than behavioral health.

My take: CARF accreditation is worth something concrete, generally a half turn to a full turn over a comparable unaccredited program, because it clears a chunk of buyer diligence before diligence starts. And 650 clients a week is a serious book by the standards of this sector.

The phrase to press on is "recurring revenue sources," which is doing an enormous amount of unexamined work. In Georgia outpatient behavioral health, recurring usually means DBHDD contracting, school-based programming, or both, and those contracts generate referral relationships with courts, probation officers, and child welfare agencies that a commercial practice cannot build on any sane timeline. If that's what sits underneath the phrase, this is worth considerably more than 4.75x. If "recurring" means a stable commercial panel, it's worth about what's being asked. Confirming which is the highest-value hour a buyer will spend on this deal.

So why, at 4.75x, at or below where institutional buyers have been paying for credentialed platforms, hasn't it cleared? The buyer has to bring Georgia operating experience, contracting familiarity, and a bench deep enough to hold CARF through an ownership change. That is not a long list, maybe a dozen firms nationally, and most of them are busy with something else.

6. Minnesota Based Behavioral Health Company

Substance use disorder provider with two locations focused on addiction recovery for people navigating the criminal justice system, including post-prison reentry and probation programs. Payer mix spans Medicaid, private insurance, and self-pay. Owner claims to be mostly absentee, and the trained staff is supposed to transition with the new owner.

My take: The payer mix explains more of the 46.7% margin than the headline suggests. This isn't a pure county-contract-and-Medicaid book. The listing says Medicaid, private insurance, and self-pay, and the private and self-pay pieces are where a margin like this can plausibly come from. The absentee owner points the same way, since a business already running without its owner is less likely to be carrying a large compensation addback inside that $1.41 million. Two locations, trained staff transitioning, diversified payers, and the cheapest multiple in the set. On paper this is the cleanest setup here, which makes 3.56x the thing that needs explaining.

The likeliest explanation is the referral base. Courts, probation departments, county human services, and corrections take years to cultivate, they live in relationships, and the pool of buyers who can step into them is small. A narrow buyer pool sets a low clearing price regardless of what the earnings look like. Confirm the earnings anyway: a quality of earnings on the cash flow figure and a payer-mix breakdown by location are the first two items in the file.

Then the July 1 problem again. The rate and code structure this program billed under has been replaced, and Behavioral Health Fund eligibility determination just moved from the counties to DHS, which changes the intake workflow a criminal-justice-referred provider is built around. If the margin holds up and the referrals are spread across more than one or two counties, 3.56x is cheap.

Sign-Off

That's it for Issue #14. Forward to one person, reply with feedback, and reach out directly if you are interested in learning more about our healthcare M&A research or are exploring a transaction, valuation, or FMV engagement.

Will Hamilton, CVA

Founder, Scope Research and HealthFMV

The Weekly Checkup is published every Tuesday morning. Written for general informational purposes. Engagements through Scope Research or HealthFMV require a separate agreement.

Get the next one in your inbox

Subscribe free