As of 2025, New York-Presbyterian hospital is the largest hospital in the United States with its eight campuses based in New York City. This was followed by AdventHealth Orlando in Florida stands as the second largest hospital in the United States, boasting an impressive 2,787 beds. Evolving landscape of U.S. hospitals Despite the decline in the total number of hospitals since 1980, the healthcare sector continues to grow in other ways. U.S. hospitals now employ about 7.5 million workers and generate a gross output of around 1,263 billion U.S. dollars. The Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tennessee, leads the pack as the largest health system in the country, operating 222 hospitals as of February 2025. This reflects a trend towards consolidation and the rise of for-profit hospital chains, which gained prominence in the 1990s. Specialization and emergency care While bed count is one measure of hospital size, institutions also distinguish themselves through specialization and emergency care capabilities. For instance, the University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center performed 22,287 organ transplants between January 1988 and March 2025, making it the leading transplant center in the nation. In terms of emergency care, Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas recorded the highest number of emergency department visits in 2024, with 235,893 patients seeking urgent care.

As of February 2025, the Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tennessee, was the largest health system in the United States, with a total of 222 hospitals. HCA Healthcare is also the largest U.S. health system when ranked by the number of beds and, as expected, by net patient revenue.Hospitals in the United StatesCurrently, there are approximately 6,120 hospitals in the United States. Looking over the past decades, this figure was constantly decreasing. For example, there were nearly 7,000 hospitals in 1980. There are some 5.3 million persons employed in U.S. hospitals in full-time. Contrary to the decrease in the number of hospitals, employment has been increasing steadily. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. hospitals generate a total gross output of around 1,075 billion U.S. dollars. The largest portion of U.S. hospitals are non-profit facilities. A smaller share includes private-owned for-profit hospitals. In most cases, these hospitals are part of hospital chains. For-profit hospitals developed especially in the 1990s, with the aim to gain profit for their shareholders. The Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tennessee, is the U.S. for-profit hospital operator with the highest number of hospitals.

Context

Every year, all U.S. hospitals that accept payments from Medicare and Medicaid must submit quality data to The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS' Hospital Compare program is a consumer-oriented website that provides information on "the quality of care hospitals are providing to their patients." CMS releases this quality data publicly in order to encourage hospitals to improve their quality and to help consumer make better decisions about which providers they visit.

"Hospital Compare provides data on over 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, including acute care hospitals, critical access hospitals (CAHs), children’s hospitals, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Medical Centers, and hospital outpatient departments"

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses a five-star quality rating system to measure the experiences Medicare beneficiaries have with their health plan and health care system — the Star Rating Program. Health plans are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being the highest.

Content

• Includes the most recent Hospital General Information.csv data for each archive year found on CMS' archive site. Years: 2016-2020

| Column Name | Data Type | Description | | --- | --- | -- | | Facility ID | Char(6) | Facility Medicare ID | | Facility Name | Char(72) | Name of the facility | | Address | Char(51) | Facility street address | | City | Char(20) | Facility City | | State | Char(2) | Facility State | | ZIP Code | Num(8) | Facility ZIP Code | | County Name | Char(25) | Facility County | | Phone Number | Char(14) | Facility Phone Number | | Hospital Type | Char(34) | What type of facility is it? | | Hospital Ownership | Char(43) | What type of ownership does the facility have? | | Emergency Services | Char(3)) | Does the facility have emergency services Yes/No? | | Meets criteria for promoting interoperability of EHRs | Char(1) | Does facility meet government EHR standard Yes/No? | | Hospital overall rating | Char(13) | Hospital Overall Star Rating 1=Worst; 5=Best. Aggregate measure of all other measures | | Hospital overall rating footnote | Num(8) | | | Mortality national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on mortality measures compared to other facilities | | Mortality national comparison footnote | Num(8) | | | Safety of care national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on safety measures compared to other facilities | | Safety of care national comparison footnote | Num(8) | | | Readmission national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on readmission measures compared to other facilities | | Readmission national comparison footnote | Num(8) | | | Patient experience national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on pat. exp. measures compared to other facilities | | Patient experience national comparison footnote | Char(8) | | | Effectiveness of care national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on effect. of care measures compared to other facilities | | Effectiveness of care national comparison footnote | Char(8) | | | Timeliness of care national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on timeliness of care measures compared to other facilities | | Timeliness of care national comparison footnote| Char(8) | | | Efficient use of medical imaging national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on efficient use measures compared to other facilities | | Efficient use of medical imaging national comparison footnote | Char(8) | | | Year | Char(4) | cms data release year |

Acknowledgements

A similar dataset called Hospital General Information was previously uploaded to Kaggle. However, that dataset only includes data from one year (2017). I was inspired by this dataset to go a little further and try to add a time dimension. This dataset includes a union of Hospital General Information for the years 2016-2020. The python script used to collect and union all the datasets can be found on my [github[(https://github.com/abrambeyer/cms_hospital_general_info_file_downloader). Thanks to this dataset owner for the inspiration.

Thanks to CMS for releasing this dataset publicly to help consumers find better hospitals and make better-informed decisions.

***All Hospital Compare websites are publically accessible. As works of the U.S. government, Hospital Compare data are in the public domain and permission is not required to reuse them. An attribution to the agency as the source is appreciated. Your ...

In 2023, Singapore dominated the ranking of the world's health and health systems, followed by Japan and South Korea. The health index score is calculated by evaluating various indicators that assess the health of the population, and access to the services required to sustain good health, including health outcomes, health systems, sickness and risk factors, and mortality rates. The health and health system index score of the top ten countries with the best healthcare system in the world ranged between 82 and 86.9, measured on a scale of zero to 100.

Global Health Security Index  Numerous health and health system indexes have been developed to assess various attributes and aspects of a nation's healthcare system. One such measure is the Global Health Security (GHS) index. This index evaluates the ability of 195 nations to identify, assess, and mitigate biological hazards in addition to political and socioeconomic concerns, the quality of their healthcare systems, and their compliance with international finance and standards. In 2021, the United States was ranked at the top of the GHS index, but due to multiple reasons, the U.S. government failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. The GHS Index evaluates capability and identifies preparation gaps; nevertheless, it cannot predict a nation's resource allocation in case of a public health emergency.

Universal Health Coverage Index  Another health index that is used globally by the members of the United Nations (UN) is the universal health care (UHC) service coverage index. The UHC index monitors the country's progress related to the sustainable developmental goal (SDG) number three. The UHC service coverage index tracks 14 indicators related to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, service capacity, and access to care. The main target of universal health coverage is to ensure that no one is denied access to essential medical services due to financial hardships. In 2021, the UHC index scores ranged from as low as 21 to a high score of 91 across 194 countries. 

For more than 45 years, the CPSC has operated a statistically valid injury surveillance and follow-back system known as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). The primary purpose of NEISS is to collect data on consumer product-related injuries occurring in the United States. CPSC uses these data to produce nationwide estimates of product-related injuries.NEISS is based on a nationally representative probability sample of hospitals in the U.S. and its territories. Each participating NEISS hospital reports patient information for every emergency department visit associated with a consumer product or a poisoning to a child younger than five years of age. The total number of product-related hospital emergency department visits nationwide can be estimated from the sample of cases reported in the NEISS.NEISS Data Highlights CPSC staff produces annual NEISS Data Highlights reports that summarize injury data by major product groups, product subgroups, age, and sex. These reports are published in mid to late April and are a good entry point to understanding the kind of data available through NEISS.Data highlights are divided into 4 folders - Overview, Top 20 Product Injury Estimates by Age, Top 20 Product Injury Estimates by Sex, and Top 20 Product Injury Estimates by Age and Sex. Each PDF represents 1 year, indicated in the title.Files downloaded May 23, 2025.

The number of hospitals in the United States was forecast to continuously decrease between 2024 and 2029 by in total 13 hospitals (-0.23 percent). According to this forecast, in 2029, the number of hospitals will have decreased for the twelfth consecutive year to 5,548 hospitals. Depicted is the number of hospitals in the country or region at hand. As the OECD states, the rules according to which an institution can be registered as a hospital vary across countries.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the number of hospitals in countries like Canada and Mexico.

Abstract

Brazil has made significant progress in human development over the last decade, thanks to a series of policy innovations, and equity of access has increased considerably. In health, consolidation of government health financing, the organization of the sector into a country-wide system (Unified Health System, or SUS) and the greater emphasis on primary care have been critical for these improvements.

Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness in the use of health resources to contain rising costs is perhaps the greatest challenge facing the Brazilian health system.

Brazil’s federal structure and the decentralized nature of the SUS make the financial flows difficult to track and monitor. Despite continuous upgrading, existing information systems do not permit accurate identification of how resources are allocated within the context of SUS, nor how expenditures are executed and services provided at the health unit level. Information is lacking regarding how much SUS as a whole (including the federal, state and municipal governments) spends on hospital and primary care. The levels of efficiency in health service provision are not systematically documented.

This study assesses how the processes of allocation, transfer and utilization of resources are conducted at the different levels of the system. The study provides valuable information regarding the reality of the executing units of the system and how these relate to the central levels. It also seeks to identify problems related to financial flows, analyze how resources are used at the local level, and estimate their impact on the efficiency and quality of health services in general. In this respect, the study provides a basis for improving the entire cycle of public resource management processes (i.e., planning, budgeting, budget execution, input management, and health service production) in the health sector.

The survey was based on a sample of six states, 17 municipalities in those six states, and 49 hospitals and 20 outpatient units in the sampled municipalities. While the sample is not statistically representative of SUS as a whole because of its small size, an effort was made to capture a variety of situations found in the Brazilian federation so that the findings would exemplify typical conditions found in SUS.

Geographic coverage

States of Amazonas, Ceará, Mato Grosso, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul and São Paulo.

Analysis unit

• Ministry of Health;
• State Health Secretariats;
• Municipal Health Secretariats;
• health units (hospitals and outpatient clinics).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample selected for the study was designed in order to highlight the regional variations between the health units and at the same time to keep logistical costs to a minimum. For these reasons, a non-randomized sampling in three stages was chosen: first, the sample covered states, second, the municipalities located in those states, and third, health units located within the municipalities. This sampling structure was chosen in order to permit tracking of the resource flows within a particular state and the cross-referencing of information at the three levels of the research.

Initially, the sample took into account six states with their respective state health secretariats, 18 municipalities and 76 health units (52 hospitals and 24 outpatient clinics). As a result of data collection being abandoned in one particular municipality as well as in a number of health units, and given the difficulty of accessing certain information, the final sample encompassed 17 municipalities (Municipal Health Secretariats), 49 hospitals (public and philanthropic), and 20 outpatient clinics (state and municipal).

Although the resulting sample reflects the very different circumstances existing within Unified Health System (SUS), it is too small for each stratum of units and consequently does not allow statistical extrapolation of the results.

In the sampling exercise, states were selected to represent each of the six Brazilian major regions (for the southeast region two states were included given the population density and a high concentration of health establishments). One of the main criteria for selection was to reflect the diversity in size and different characteristics of the states, municipalities and health units.

Municipalities were selected on the basis of size. State capitals were included, plus one middle-sized municipality per state (roughly 200,000 inhabitants) and at least one small-sized municipality (of approximately 50,000 inhabitants). The resulting sample of municipalities could be considered reasonably representative of the diverse nature of SUS.

The hospitals selected were required to meet the following requirements: to attend mainly to SUS users, to have a minimum of 50 beds, to possess reasonable information systems and to be broadly representative of SUS as such. Various hospitals were included in the sample that had been included in other recent studies which made it possible to cross-reference and compare information. The proposed distribution focused on public hospitals since the main thrust of the study concerned budget relationships and transfers of resources. This sample was stratified by size (medium-sized/big and small hospitals) and sphere, in order to try and obtain a sufficient number of units of each type to produce representative results. Efforts were also made to include hospitals with different characteristics such as those that undertake teaching and research and public hospitals administered under different kinds of management arrangements.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The questionnaires were applied in the course of interviews with state health secretaries or someone designated by them (normally a professional charged with a specific area with access to the necessary information); municipal health secretaries (or designates); directors of hospitals; and directors of outpatient departments/clinics. Moreover, concurrent side interviews were undertaken with staff from a number of different technical and administrative divisions with the aim of clarifying and amplifying the research findings. Finally, together with the application of the questionnaire, reports and other supporting documents were requested relating to budgets, plans, management reports, etc.

The internal structure of the questionnaires was common to all types of units researched (SES and SMS, hospitals and outpatient clinics), although obviously the content of each section is specific to each type of unit.

The basic format of the questionnaire was organized around planning and budget allocation and implementation processes and the main inputs used in health service delivery (i.e., materials and medical drugs, human resources and equipment/installations). The component sections of the questionnaire were the following: • Section A - Information from the secretariats or health units. This section gives the identity details of the units researched, the name of the person responsible for the unit and details about the profile and type of unit (in the case of hospitals and outpatient clinics, the number of beds and services on offer are included). • Section B - Budgetary planning and processes. This section examines the budget and planning process at its different stages, the degree of autonomy in the preparation and implementation stages of the budget, the delays in releasing and applying funds, the differences between the values requested, approved and executed, including the use of the ‘up-front’ payment/petty cash system. • Section C - Purchases, materials and drugs management. This section deals with information regarding the purchasing and storage systems, including pharmacy. Surveys were done basically to elucidate the physical condition of stocks, delays in bidding processes and the impact of these elements on service delivery. • Section D - Equipment and installations. This section examined the equipment estate, covering inter alia the frequency rate of breakdowns/breakages in addition to examining the physical conditions of installations. • Section E - Human resources. Information was sought in the section regarding the staff, its distribution, qualifications, absenteeism and any failure to comply with working hours. • Section F - Hospital and outpatient clinic expenditure. In this section data was sought on the expenditure by type and receipts by source, together with an analysis of the service providers and the impact of receipts from SUS on overall expenditure. • Section G - Hospital and outpatient clinic productivity. Data was collected regarding the productivity of the units and, wherever possible, performance and quality indicators were calculated.

Supplementary documentation requested included: • Municipal/State Health Agenda (2002-2003); • Municipal/State Health Plan (2002-2003); • Current Multi-Year Plan (referring to health); • Budget Guidelines Law (2002-2003); • Municipal/State Health Budget (2002-2003); • Documentary evidence of present budget execution (2002 and first half of 2003); • Municipal/State Balance Sheets, Annex 2, 6 (Health section),10 and 11, for 2002; • Management Reports (2002). • Personnel Allocation Chart • Organization chart of Institution

Emergency department visits in U.S. hospitals continue to surge, with *********************************** in Dallas leading the pack in 2024. The facility recorded ******* ED visits, followed closely by ******************************** in Florida with ******* visits. This trend highlights the growing demand for emergency medical services across the country, particularly in large urban centers. Evolving healthcare landscape While emergency departments are busier than ever, the overall number of hospitals in the U.S. has been decreasing since the 1970s. Meanwhile, there is a rise of large health systems. The Hospital Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tennessee, stands as the largest health system in the country, operating *** hospitals as of February 2025. This consolidation trend reflects the changing dynamics of healthcare delivery and management in the United States. Specialization and capacity challenges As hospitals face increasing pressure on their emergency departments, many are also focusing on specialized services to meet diverse patient needs. For instance, the ****************************************************** performed ****** organ transplants between January 1988 and March 2025, making it the nation's ******* transplant center. Meanwhile, ******************** in Florida holds the title of the largest U.S. hospital with ***** beds.

Group purchasing organizations (GPOs) have recently demonstrated adaptability and strategic importance in the healthcare supply chain, guiding hospitals, clinics and related entities through mounting procurement complexities. Their effectiveness draws from a combination of centralized purchasing, supplier vetting and compliance management—a blend that relieves administrative burdens on healthcare providers and bolsters purchasing transparency. GPOs deploy a mix of advanced analytics and digital procurement tools, which streamline purchasing and enhance negotiation power. While the shift to virtual operations and remote work settings has modestly reduced spending on rent and utilities, investments in data security and ongoing compliance remain critical for maintaining trust and operational efficiency. Through the end of 2025, industry revenue has climbed at a CAGR of 2.7% to reach $7.3 billion in 2025, including an expansion of 1.6% in 2025 alone. The careful management of cost structures and high transaction volumes balances profitability. With administration fees generally capped—particularly in healthcare—profit generation hinges on leveraging scale and recruiting broad, loyal memberships. This dynamic requires constant innovation in member engagement and value-added services, which help counter limitations imposed by low fee ceilings. On the cost side, previous inflation and unpredictable tariff adjustments have pushed GPOs to rethink sourcing strategies, with many adopting flexible supplier contracts and investing in sophisticated supply chain analytics to manage fluctuating purchase prices. Labor costs have steadied as digital platforms and automation replace manual tasks, optimizing workforce efficiency despite cooler market conditions. Stable asset management and limited marketing needs allow GPOs to keep depreciation and promotional expenditures contained, reinforcing overall profit resilience even as they face new pressures. GPOs' performance suggests that digital transformation and specialization will become central drivers of growth and competitive differentiation. The integration of e-sourcing platforms, machine learning, and real-time supply chain analytics will further streamline operations and improve compliance with evolving regulations. Heightened demand for transparency, auditability and sustainability will prompt GPOs to adopt greener procurement models and more rigorous supplier vetting processes, positioning them to capture business from clients prioritizing corporate responsibility. A growing appetite for tailored services will favor the rise of niche and micro GPOs, which can quickly adjust offerings for specialized segments, pushing even established players to innovate and segment their offerings. As organizations emphasize direct relationships and high customization, future success will likely depend on technology-enabled flexibility, advanced analytics and deep sector expertise, marking a shift toward more agile partnership models and sustainable profitability. Revenue will expand at a CAGR of 2.1% to reach $8.1 billion.

Context

How satisfied are U.S. patients? Is a hospital's overall score really determined by how well it provides good customer services? Are there types of hospitals or regions where patient satisfaction is better or worse?

Every year, all U.S. hospitals that accept payments from Medicare and Medicaid must submit quality data to The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS' Hospital Compare program is a consumer-oriented website that provides information on "the quality of care hospitals are providing to their patients." CMS releases this quality data publicly in order to encourage hospitals to improve their quality and to help consumer make better decisions about which providers they visit.

"Hospital Compare provides data on over 4,000 Medicare-certified hospitals, including acute care hospitals, critical access hospitals (CAHs), children’s hospitals, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Medical Centers, and hospital outpatient departments"

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) uses a five-star quality rating system to measure the experiences Medicare beneficiaries have with their health plan and health care system — the Star Rating Program. Health plans are rated on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being the highest.

One part of a hospital's overall rating is it's patient satisfaction survey scores. CMS attempts to take into consideration how well patients are treated by the provider. A description of HCAHPS can be found here ***HCAHPS Description.

Content

| Filename | Year | Dataset Rows | Dataset Columns | | --- | --- | --- | --- ] | cms_hospital_patient_satisfaction_2020.csv | 2020 | 442587 | 43 | | cms_hospital_patient_satisfaction_2019.csv | 2019 | 442401 | 43 | | cms_hospital_patient_satisfaction_2018.csv | 2018 | 239650 | 43 | | cms_hospital_patient_satisfaction_2017.csv | 2017 | 264660 | 43 | | cms_hospital_patient_satisfaction_2016.csv | 2016 | 264385 | 43 |

• Includes the most recent Hospital General Information.csv data for each archive year found on CMS' archive site. Years: 2016-2020

NOTE: Some Hospital Medicare IDs have leading zeroes. Be sure to read Facility ID column as a string.

| Column Name | Data Type | Description | | --- | --- | -- | | Facility ID | Char(6) | Facility Medicare ID | | Facility Name | Char(72) | Name of the facility | | Address | Char(51) | Facility street address | | City | Char(20) | Facility City | | State | Char(2) | Facility State | | ZIP Code | Num(8) | Facility ZIP Code | | County Name | Char(25) | Facility County | | Phone Number | Char(14) | Facility Phone Number | | HCAHPS Measure ID | Char(25) | HCAHPS Patient Survey Measure Name | | HCAHPS Question | Char(138) | HCAHPS Patient Survey Question | | HCAHPS Answer Description | Char(118)| HCAHPS Patient Survey Answer | | Patient Survey Star Rating | Char(14) | Overall rating for survey item | | Patient Survey Star Rating Footnote | Char(7) | n/a | | HCAHPS Answer Percent | Char(14) | Percent of surveys with question answered | | HCAHPS Answer Percent Footnote | Char(8) | n/a | | HCAHPS Linear Mean Value | Char(14) | HCAHPS Patient Survey question linear mean value | | Number of Completed Surveys | Char(13) | Number of completed surveys for hospital. N-size. | | Number of Completed Surveys Footnote | Char(8) | n/a | | Survey Response Rate Percent | Char(13) | Hospital survey response rate. | | Survey Response Rate Percent Footnote | Char(8) | n/a | | Start Date | Date | Survey collection period start date | | End Date | Date | Survey collection period end date | | Year | Char(4) | cms data release year | | Hospital Type | Char(34) | What type of facility is it? | | Hospital Ownership | Char(43) | What type of ownership does the facility have? | | Emergency Services | Char(3)) | Does the facility have emergency services Yes/No? | | Meets criteria for promoting interoperability of EHRs | Char(1) | Does facility meet government EHR standard Yes/No? | | Hospital overall rating | Char(13) | Hospital Overall Star Rating 1=Worst; 5=Best. Aggregate measure of all other measures | | Hospital overall rating footnote | Num(8) | | | Mortality national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on mortality measures compared to other facilities | | Mortality national comparison footnote | Num(8) | | | Safety of care national comparison | Char(28) | Facility overall performance on safety measures compared to other facilities | | Safety of care national comparison footnote | Num(8) | | | Readmission national co...

The graph displays the average hospital stay cost per inpatient day in the United States by hospital type from 1999 to 2022. The x-axis represents the years, ranging from 1999 to 2022, while the y-axis indicates the cost in dollars per inpatient day. The data is categorized into three types of hospitals: State/Local Government Hospitals, Non-Profit Hospitals, and For-Profit Hospitals.

In 1999, State/Local Government Hospitals had an average cost of $1,004.02 per inpatient day, which increased to $2,856.58 by 2022. Non-Profit Hospitals started with the highest costs at $1,139.49 in 1999 and rose to $3,166.58 in 2022, maintaining the highest costs among the three categories throughout the period. For-Profit Hospitals had the lowest starting cost at $999.03 in 1999 and reached $2,383.42 by 2022.

The data reveals that all hospital types experienced a consistent upward trend in costs over the 23-year period. Non-Profit Hospitals consistently had the highest costs, followed by State/Local Government Hospitals, and then For-Profit Hospitals. This upward trajectory highlights the increasing healthcare expenses in the United States across all types of hospitals.

Connected Bedside Terminal Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Connected Bedside Terminal market size was valued at $1.2 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $3.8 billion by 2033, expanding at a CAGR of 13.7% during 2024–2033. The rapid digital transformation within healthcare facilities, coupled with the increasing demand for personalized patient care and seamless clinical workflows, is a major factor propelling the growth of the connected bedside terminal market globally. Hospitals and healthcare providers are investing heavily in advanced patient engagement solutions to enhance patient experience, streamline communication, and optimize clinical efficiency, thereby fueling the adoption of connected bedside terminals across diverse healthcare settings.

Regional Outlook

North America currently holds the largest share of the global connected bedside terminal market, accounting for over 38% of the total market value in 2024. This dominance can be attributed to the region’s mature healthcare infrastructure, high adoption rates of digital health technologies, and robust government support for healthcare IT modernization. The United States, in particular, is leading due to its significant investments in hospital digitization, strong presence of key market players, and favorable reimbursement policies for advanced patient care solutions. Additionally, the region benefits from a tech-savvy patient population and stringent regulatory frameworks that encourage the integration of innovative technologies, further accelerating the deployment of connected bedside terminals in hospitals and long-term care facilities.

The Asia Pacific region is emerging as the fastest-growing market for connected bedside terminals, with an impressive projected CAGR of 15.8% from 2024 to 2033. This rapid growth is driven by increasing healthcare expenditure, a rising middle-class population, and growing awareness of the benefits of digital healthcare solutions. Countries such as China, Japan, and India are witnessing substantial investments in smart hospital projects and public-private partnerships aimed at improving healthcare quality and accessibility. The adoption of connected bedside terminals in this region is further supported by government initiatives to digitize healthcare services and the proliferation of affordable, technologically advanced devices tailored to local needs.

Emerging economies in Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are also experiencing a steady increase in the adoption of connected bedside terminals, though at a more moderate pace compared to developed regions. These markets face unique challenges, including budget constraints, varying levels of healthcare infrastructure maturity, and limited access to advanced technologies. However, localized demand for improved patient care, coupled with policy reforms aimed at modernizing healthcare systems, is gradually creating growth opportunities. Strategic collaborations between local governments and international technology providers are expected to accelerate market penetration, particularly in urban healthcare centers where demand for efficient patient management solutions is on the rise.

Report Scope

In 2024, the average staff turnover rate of hospitals in the U.S. stood at **** percent. The percentage of employees leaving hospitals has decreased since the peak of ** percent in 2021. A closer look at turnover reveals that most was among less tenured staff, with the highest rates among certified nursing assistants.

Snapshot img

Electronic Health Records Market Size 2025-2029

The electronic health records market size is forecast to increase by USD 49.41 billion, at a CAGR of 14.8% between 2024 and 2029. Benefits of EHR leading to rise in adoption will drive the electronic health records market.

Major Market Trends & Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 45% growth during the forecast period.
By Deployment - On-premises segment was valued at USD 17.86 billion in 2023
By Component - Services segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2023

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 269.86 billion
Market Future Opportunities: USD 49407.30 billion 
CAGR : 14.8%
North America: Largest market in 2023

Market Summary

The Electronic Health Records (EHR) Market is a dynamic and evolving sector that continues to shape the future of healthcare delivery. Core technologies, such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence, are revolutionizing the way healthcare providers manage patient data, leading to increased adoption rates. According to recent studies, the global EHR market is expected to reach a significant market share by 2026, growing at a steady pace due to the rising demand for self-medication and homecare medical devices. However, this growth is not without challenges. Data security and privacy concerns persist, with cyberattacks and breaches posing a significant threat to patient information.
Despite these challenges, opportunities abound, particularly in the areas of telemedicine and remote patient monitoring. As the market continues to unfold, it is essential to keep abreast of the latest trends and developments. Related markets such as telehealth and health information exchanges also play a crucial role in the EHR landscape.

What will be the Size of the Electronic Health Records Market during the forecast period?

Get Key Insights on Market Forecast (PDF) Request Free Sample

How is the Electronic Health Records Market Segmented and what are the key trends of market segmentation?

The electronic health records industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD billion' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments.

Deployment

  On-premises
  Cloud-based


Component

  Services
  Software
  Hardware


Business

  Licensed Software
  Technology Resale
  Subscriptions
  Professional Services
  Others
  Licensed Software
  Technology Resale
  Subscriptions
  Professional Services
  Others


Type

  Standalone
  Integrated
  Standalone
  Integrated


End-User

  Physician Offices
  Hospitals
  Others
  Physician Offices
  Hospitals
  Others


Geography

  North America

    US
    Canada


  Europe

    France
    Germany
    Italy
    Spain
    UK


  APAC

    China
    India
    Japan


  Rest of World (ROW)

By Deployment Insights

The on-premises segment is estimated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.

In the dynamic and evolving landscape of healthcare technology, Electronic Health Records (EHR) continue to play a pivotal role. According to recent reports, over 80% of US hospitals and 60% of physician offices currently use EHR systems, illustrating significant market penetration. Looking ahead, industry forecasts suggest that data security protocols, reporting and analytics, and population health management will drive future growth. Data security is a top priority, with 57% of healthcare organizations investing in advanced security measures. Remote patient monitoring and data interoperability are also gaining traction, with 30% of healthcare providers adopting these technologies. EHR company selection, health information exchange, and telehealth integration are essential components of a comprehensive EHR strategy.

Data governance policies, clinical documentation improvement, API integration, and system scalability are crucial for efficient EHR implementation. Population health management, clinical decision support, and disaster recovery planning are key areas of focus for improving patient care and operational efficiency. On-premise EHR systems offer physical control and long-term cost savings, but integration challenges persist. Approximately 20% of healthcare organizations still use on-premises EHR, citing benefits such as increased control and lower costs. However, these systems often require significant resources for implementation, maintenance, and customization. EHR implementation lifecycle, user access management, and audit trails are essential considerations for organizations implementing EHR systems.

Cloud-based EHR systems offer flexibility and scalability, with 70% of healthcare providers considering a cloud deployment. Data validation rules, patient portal access, and HL7 FHIR standard are ess

The North American pharmaceutical warehousing market is experiencing steady growth, driven by factors such as the increasing demand for pharmaceutical products, the need for specialized storage and handling facilities for temperature-sensitive pharmaceuticals, and the evolving regulatory landscape. The market is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.16% during the forecast period of 2025-2033. In 2025, the market was valued at USD 52.66 million and is projected to reach USD 89.32 million by 2033. The market is segmented based on type into cold chain warehouses and non-cold chain warehouses. Cold chain warehouses are designed to store and handle temperature-sensitive pharmaceutical products within a specific temperature range. Non-cold chain warehouses are used for storing and handling pharmaceutical products that do not require temperature control. Based on application, the market is divided into pharmaceutical factories, pharmacies, hospitals, and others. Pharmaceutical factories are the largest application segment, due to the growing demand for pharmaceutical products. The other segments include pharmacies, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities that require pharmaceutical products for patient care. Recent developments include: June 2023: McKesson Canada opened its new 233,000 sq ft pharmaceutical distribution facility in Surrey. The facility, up and running since March, provides medical supplies, vaccines, specialty medications, and OTC products to over 1,300 medical facilities, clinics, and pharmacies throughout British Columbia., February 2023: Langham Logistics, one of the leading third-party logistics and freight management companies, opened its third warehouse in Whiteland, Indiana. This latest warehouse boasts 500,000 sq ft of dedicated space. It is designed to maintain storage environments by temperature zone: controlled room temperature (20-25 degrees Celsius), refrigerated (2-8 degrees Celsius), frozen (-20 degrees Celsius), and an ultra-low temperature freezer farm. The new facility will provide access to the ocean, air, freight, truckload, expedited, less than truckload, intermodal, and cGDP transport capabilities. It features an environmentally friendly design, including solar energy capture, HVLS fans, LED lights with motion detection, and battery-operated fork trucks.. Key drivers for this market are: 4., The Rise in Demand for Outsourcing Pharmaceutical Warehousing Services4.; Increasing Need for Pharmaceutical Products. Potential restraints include: 4., Lack of Efficient Logistics Support4.; Stringent Government Regulations. Notable trends are: Rise in Aged Population in North America is Driving the Market.

According to The Vision Council (a non-profit trade association) survey, 79.0% of respondents use a form of vision correction (contact lenses, reading and prescription glasses). Eye surgery clinics have targeted the vision correction market, with growth driven by demographic and technological change. Increased screen time and a healthcare system focusing on preventive care have fostered demand and potential clients. Rising eye disease rates and an aging population have also spurred demand. However, the costs of alternatives like glasses and contact lenses, combined with the smaller budgets of younger clients and online platforms promoting the ease of purchasing style-forward glasses, dampen the number of surgeries. Younger adults, especially those aged 20-40, may choose not to undergo expensive vision correction surgery despite its potential benefits and cost savings when considering a long-term horizon. LASIK procedures saw a strong rebound after the pandemic. However, since then, the number of procedures has slowed, but the expansion of services has revived growth. Total industry revenue is expected to climb at a CAGR of 3.7% through 2025, reaching $2.0 billion and rising by 1.7% in 2025 alone. Eye surgery clinics operate primarily in densely populated areas. These locations provide access to skilled workers and a potentially large client base, bringing economies. The majority of clinics are physician-owned, followed by those with corporate ownership and institutional ownership. Since this concentration promotes competition, some clinics specialize in advanced techniques to avoid direct price competition. Because minimal government funding and surgeries are funded out-of-pocket or by private insurance, clinics tend to prosper in a growing economy. Innovations in vision correction technologies drive demand and revenue, while also altering the competitive landscape. These advancements enhance accuracy, reduce risks and shorten recovery times. AI innovations will bring efficiency and improve marketing efforts. However, as industry concentration and concentration in the more considerable ophthalmology sector climb, competition is expected to intensify as demand for lens-based surgeries increases, shifting demand from LASIK. Faced with competitive forces and some consolidation in the market, profit is expected to drop to a stagnant level, accounting for 9.3% of revenue. Total industry revenue is expected to climb at a CAGR of 1.9%, reaching $2.2 billion by 2030.

According to Cognitive Market Research, the Global Laparoscopy Devices Market Size was USD XX Billion in 2023 and is set to achieve a market size of USD XX Billion by the end of 2031 growing at a CAGR of XX% from 2024 to 2031.

Based on Product Type, the energy devices segment will dominate the global Laparoscopy Devices market in the year 2023. Based on Product type, the market is divided into laparoscopes, energy devices, insufflators, robot-assisted surgical systems, suction or irrigation systems, closure devices, hand instruments, access devices, and accessories.
Based on Application, the General surgery segment dominated the global Laparoscopy Devices market. Based on Application, the global Laparoscopy Devices market is segmented into general surgery, bariatric surgery, gynecological surgery, urological surgery, colorectal surgery, and others.
Based on end-users, the hospitals segment dominated the global Laparoscopy Devices market. Based on end-users, the global Laparoscopy Devices market is segmented into hospitals, clinics, and others
The North American region accounted for the highest market share in the Global Laparoscopy Devices Market. 
Over the course of the projection period, Europe is expected to increase at the fastest rate.

CURRENT SCENARIO OF THE LAPAROSCOPY DEVICES MARKET

Key factors driving the growth of the Laparoscopy Devices Market

The growing burden of diseases such as gallstones and appendicitis to contribute the market growth

A laparoscopic surgical method is used to treat a variety of conditions, including hernias, appendicitis, and gallstones. The demand for laparoscopy devices is expected to rise during the forecast period due to the rising prevalence of gallstones and an increase in the number of patients suffering from acute appendicitis.

For instance, according to the data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), gallstones affect 10 to 15% of the U.S. population. (Source;https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/gallstones/definition-facts#:~:text=Gallstones%20are%20very%20common%2C%20affecting,be%20treated%2C%20usually%20with%20surgery.)

It is anticipated that the high incidence of gallstones in the United States would lead to a rise in surgical operations, particularly laparoscopic procedures. If left untreated, a number of illnesses, including appendicitis and gallstones, can become serious. Because of this, a sizable portion of people with these conditions favour surgical procedures known as cholecystectomy and appendectomy, respectively. The number of laparoscopic procedures performed has increased over the last ten years, which has greatly fueled market expansion.

According to the data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the total number of laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures in EU-5 (Germany, U.K., Italy, France, and Spain) increased from 484,724 in 2010 to 537,402 in 2019. (Source;https://stats.oecd.org/fileview2.aspx?IDFile=53847866-4eb2-4238-84d4-f5470ad4ffba)

Such an increase in the number of procedures coupled with a growing burden of various diseases is expected to drive market growth in the coming years. Increasing

Demand for Minimally Invasive Surgeries Boost Market Growth 

As more people become aware of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, the procedure's acceptance is expected to grow, which is expected to be a major factor in the market's projected expansion during the research period.

Additionally, during the course of the evaluation period, it is anticipated that the market will grow significantly due to increased financing and advantageous policies offered by various governments. Over the course of the research period, it is also expected that the ageing population will play a major role in driving market expansion.

Smaller incisions or needle insertions are the hallmark of minimally invasive procedures, which have a number of benefits over open surgery. Minimal tissue injury, less blood loss, and a decreased chance of complications are the outcomes of these operations. Minimally invasive surgery patients usually recover more quickly from their procedures and spend less time in the hospital afterward, which improves their quality of life overall and enables them to return to normal activities sooner.

In April 2023, Angio Dynamic...

Fanless Medical-Grade Monitor Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Fanless Medical-Grade Monitor market size was valued at $1.2 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $2.7 billion by 2033, expanding at a CAGR of 9.4% during the forecast period of 2025–2033. The primary factor driving this robust growth is the increasing demand for hygienic, reliable, and low-maintenance display solutions within healthcare environments, where infection control and operational continuity are paramount. Fanless medical-grade monitors, by eliminating moving parts such as fans, reduce the risk of airborne contamination and mechanical failure, making them indispensable in critical medical settings ranging from operating rooms to intensive care units. This market’s expansion is further propelled by rapid technological advancements and the growing adoption of digital healthcare infrastructure globally, underlining the sector’s pivotal role in the modernization of medical facilities.

Regional Outlook

North America commands the largest share of the global Fanless Medical-Grade Monitor market, accounting for approximately 38% of total revenue in 2024. This dominance is attributed to the region’s mature healthcare industry, widespread adoption of advanced medical technologies, and stringent regulatory standards that prioritize patient safety and device reliability. The United States, in particular, benefits from significant investments in healthcare IT infrastructure and a high concentration of leading medical device manufacturers. Furthermore, favorable reimbursement policies and a strong focus on infection prevention drive continuous upgrades and replacements of medical display equipment. The presence of well-established distribution networks and a high rate of digital transformation across hospitals and clinics further reinforce North America’s leadership in this sector.

The Asia Pacific region is projected to be the fastest-growing market, with a forecasted CAGR exceeding 12% from 2025 to 2033. This rapid expansion is fueled by burgeoning healthcare expenditures, infrastructural upgrades, and the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases that necessitate advanced diagnostic and monitoring solutions. Countries such as China, Japan, and India are witnessing significant investments in hospital modernization, coupled with government initiatives to enhance healthcare accessibility and quality. The region’s large and aging population, combined with rising awareness of infection control protocols, is accelerating the adoption of fanless medical-grade monitors in both urban and rural medical facilities. Additionally, local manufacturing initiatives and the entry of international players are intensifying market competition and driving down costs, further boosting market penetration.

In emerging economies across Latin America and the Middle East & Africa, the fanless medical-grade monitor market is experiencing steady growth, albeit at a slower pace compared to developed regions. These markets face unique adoption challenges, including limited healthcare budgets, infrastructural constraints, and varying regulatory landscapes. However, localized demand for affordable and durable medical equipment is rising, particularly in private clinics and diagnostic centers that seek to improve operational efficiency and patient safety. Policy reforms aimed at healthcare modernization, combined with international aid and public-private partnerships, are gradually facilitating the introduction of advanced medical technologies. Nonetheless, market expansion is tempered by supply chain complexities and the need for greater standardization and training among end-users in these regions.

Report Scope

As of 2019 in the United States, 20 percent of hospitals and acute care facilities rated their interoperability efforts as good, with a further 54 percent saying the efforts were good. However clinicians were more likely to rate the efforts towards interoperability as poor compared to those working in IT departments.

Open Wound Care Market size was valued at USD 18,646.58 Million in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 27,924.17 Million by 2031, at a CAGR of 5.94% from 2024 to 2031.

Global Open Wound Care Market Overview

The rising prevalence of chronic wounds, including diabetic ulcers, pressure ulcers, and venous leg ulcers, serves as a significant driver for the wound care market. Chronic wounds present a considerable healthcare burden, leading to prolonged hospital stays, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. As the ageing population grows and the incidence of conditions like diabetes and obesity rises, the prevalence of chronic wounds is expected to escalate, thereby driving the demand for advanced wound care products and treatments. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 6.5 million Americans suffer from chronic wounds, with diabetic foot ulcers affecting around 15% of individuals with diabetes. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reports that chronic wound care costs the U.S. healthcare system an estimated USD 20 billion annually in direct treatment expenses. With the ageing population and increasing rates of diabetes and obesity, the prevalence of chronic wounds is projected to continue rising in the United States. The European Wound Management Association (EWMA) estimates that chronic wounds affect over 4 million people in Europe, with diabetic foot ulcers being one of the most prevalent types. Chronic wound care places a significant economic burden on European healthcare systems, with direct treatment costs exceeding €6 billion annually. Similar to the United States, Europe is experiencing demographic shifts characterized by an ageing population and a higher prevalence of chronic conditions, contributing to the growing incidence of chronic wounds across the continent.

The rise in lifestyle-related conditions, such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases, is contributing to an increase in the prevalence of chronic wounds across the globe.

Diabetes is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower extremity amputations in the United States, and approximately 14-24 percent of patients with diabetes who develop a foot ulcer will require an amputation. Foot ulceration precedes 85 percent of diabetes-related amputations. Lifestyle factors like poor diet, sedentary behaviour, smoking, and alcohol consumption are known risk factors for chronic conditions that can lead to impaired wound healing and the development of chronic wounds, including diabetic foot ulcers, venous ulcers, and pressure injuries. As the incidence of these lifestyle-related conditions continues to grow, particularly among ageing populations, the demand for advanced wound care products and services to manage and treat these complex wounds is also increasing.

The significant driver influencing the global wound care market is the continuous advancement of technology in wound care. Technological innovations such as advanced wound dressings, bioactive wound healing agents, smart wound monitoring devices, and telemedicine platforms are revolutionizing how wounds are managed, diagnosed, and treated. These advancements offer healthcare providers greater insight into wound healing processes, facilitate early detection of wound complications, and enable more personalized and efficient wound care delivery. Advanced wound dressings, including hydrogels, foams, alginates, and hydrocolloids, have recently witnessed significant technological advancements. These dressings are designed to create optimal wound healing environments, manage exudate, promote tissue regeneration, and prevent infections.

One significant restr