Which provider types (e.g., behavioral health, home health, telehealth, durable medical equipment) accounted for the largest recovery shifts in 2024–2025?
Executive summary
Available reporting does not list a single ranked breakdown of “provider types” showing which—behavioral health, home health, telehealth, durable medical equipment (DME), etc.—accounted for the largest recovery shifts in 2024–2025; major consultancies and industry reports instead describe broad sector recoveries (e.g., improving EBITDA and ambulatory/home care growth) and specific trends like expanding home health and ambulatory surgery volumes [1] [2]. Sources emphasize recovery across health services and technology segments, not a one‑line provider‑type ranking [1] [2].
1. Recovery portrayed at the sector level, not by discrete provider type
Consulting and industry reports frame 2024–2025 as a period of partial financial recovery across health-care profit pools and segments—McKinsey shows payer EBITDA recovering toward a projected $78 billion by 2028 and says EBITDA recovery will continue across most segments, but it does not parcel that recovery into granular provider‑type shifts like DME vs. behavioral health [1]. L.E.K. and EY likewise describe trends (declining hospital margins, ambulatory and home growth) rather than a ranked list of which provider type “recovered the most” [3] [2].
2. Home-based care and ambulatory services singled out as growth engines
Multiple firms point to outsized volume growth outside hospitals: EY projects inpatient growth of roughly 3% versus ambulatory surgery expansion of ~21% and home health growth of ~22% between 2024 and 2034, signaling that the recovery and long‑term growth momentum favored home health and ambulatory modalities [2]. This is the clearest evidence in the reporting that home health and related site‑of‑care shifts drove meaningful recovery gains [2].
3. Behavioral health and telehealth — prominence without precise recovery math
Behavioral health and telehealth appear in trend lists as growth and strategic priorities—Cigna identifies measurement‑based behavioral health care and telehealth‑enabled services among 2025 trends, and PwC and other analyses emphasize hybrid delivery models and digital channels—yet the available sources do not quantify how much recovery each provider type captured in 2024–2025 [4] [5]. In short: behavioral health and telehealth show directional recovery importance but no comparative numbers [4] [5].
4. Technology, HST and specialty pharmacy claimed increasing EBITDA share
McKinsey and other analyses document that health services & technology (HST) and specialty pharmacy have taken a rising share of industry EBITDA—HST and specialty pharmacy grew from 16% of EBITDA in 2019 to an estimated 19% in 2024—indicating that provider types tied to technology platforms, analytics, and specialty drug administration were important drivers of financial rebound even when not enumerated by “provider type” labels like DME or PT [1].
5. Revenue mix and policy drivers complicate attribution
Reports warn that macro drivers—Medicaid redeterminations reducing enrollment, reimbursement pressures, and labor shortages—alter where recovery shows up. McKinsey and L.E.K. caution that reimbursement change dynamics and operating‑margin volatility mean a provider‑type that grows volume (e.g., home health) may not proportionally capture profits without favorable rates and workforce fixes [1] [3]. These structural caveats limit any definitive claim about which provider type “accounted for the largest recovery shifts” [1] [3].
6. What the sources do not provide — the critical data gap
No source in the provided set publishes a cross‑provider breakdown that isolates behavioral health, home health, telehealth, DME or durable medical equipment into comparable recovery‑shift metrics for 2024–2025. The materials synthesize macro trends, EBITDA projections, and modality growth forecasts but do not deliver the requested ranked attribution by provider type [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a single, comparable table or dataset that assigns percentage recovery to the provider types you listed [1] [2].
7. Practical takeaway for analysts and buyers
If you need a definitive ranking, the assembled reporting suggests starting with home health and ambulatory/ASC channels as the likeliest leaders in volume‑led recovery, with HST and specialty pharmacy showing stronger profit‑pool gains—and behavioral health and telehealth important for care delivery transformation—then commissioning or seeking claims‑level and payer‑level analyses to quantify shifts by provider type, because current public consulting reports do not supply that disaggregated attribution [2] [1] [4].
Limitations: This article uses only the supplied sources; those sources emphasize sector‑level trends and projections (EBITDA shifts, ambulatory/home growth) rather than the per‑provider‑type numerical breakdown you asked for [1] [2].