Imagine a hospital owner in Lucknow is considering adding a cardiac cath lab. The investment is somewhere between ₹3 and ₹4 crore. His reasoning is … not unreasonable: Lucknow has a population of over 35 lakh. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in India. CGHS and most of the major TPAs cover cardiac procedures. The demand, he figures, is obviously there.
What he has not asked is a simpler question. Of those 35 lakh people, how many are actually in his hospital’s catchment? Of those, how many carry insurance that his hospital accepts, at rates that make the procedure viable? Of those, how many aren’t already going to the three established cardiac centres in the city that have been doing this for fifteen years?
He is making a ₹4 crore decision against a market he has never defined.
The three-layer problem
There is a framework used in business planning that the hospital owner will find useful in his decision to add that cath lab. It has three layers: TAM, SAM, and SOM.
TAM: Total Addressable Market
The first layer — TAM, the total addressable market — is the theoretical ceiling. It is every patient who could conceivably use a hospital with your profile, in your specialty categories, anywhere you could logically operate. For a multi-specialty hospital in Jaipur, the TAM is large. It includes everyone in Rajasthan who will need secondary or tertiary care and is willing to pay for it privately. This number is real. It is also nearly useless for making decisions.
The one-line test for TAM: if your hospital disappeared tomorrow, the TAM would not change by a single rupee. Patients would go elsewhere. The market exists independently of you.
SAM: Serviceable Addressable Market
The second layer — SAM, the serviceable available market — is what you can actually reach. This is where the real constraints live.
Geography shrinks it first. Secondary care draws from a radius of roughly 20–30 km for elective procedures. Your walk-in OPD is hyperlocal — 2–3 km, sometimes less. A primary care clinic in Amritsar is not competing for patients from Bathinda, no matter how good its reputation. The catchment is real and bounded.
Empanelment shrinks it further. If you are not empanelled with CGHS, the government employees in your neighbourhood are practically inaccessible. ECHS covers defence pensioners — a significant segment in several North Indian cities — but empanelment is not automatic. Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY opens a large patient pool, but at package rates that are 40–50% below market pricing; whether that segment is in your SAM depends entirely on whether you can absorb that margin.
Specialty depth constrains it too. A 100-bed hospital with one visiting cardiologist and no cardiac ICU has a cardiac SAM that is a fraction of what the cardiac disease burden in its catchment would suggest. The constraint is not demand. It is operational readiness.
Your SAM is not bounded by who needs care. It is bounded by who it is possible to for you serve.
The one-line test for SAM: if you upgraded tomorrow — new empanelments, a second speciality, a new facility — your SAM would expand. The underlying population remains the same but you are able to reach more of it.
Serviceable Obtainable Market
The third layer — SOM, the serviceable obtainable market — is what you can actually win. This is where most operators stop thinking entirely.
Your SOM is constrained by your referral network. How many general practitioners are actively sending you patients? What is their aggregate monthly throughput? A hospital in Dehradun with forty active referring GPs, each sending two or three cases a month, has a fundamentally different SOM than one with eight referring GPs — even if both hospitals sit in the same city and carry the same bed count.
It is constrained by specialty identity. Are you known for anything? A hospital with a fifteen-year reputation in orthopaedics will convert a higher fraction of its orthopaedic SAM than a hospital where orthopaedics is one of twelve departments. Diffuse multi-specialty positioning is a TAM strategy applied to a SOM-level business. The consequence is that no referring doctor thinks of you first for anything specific. Your conversion rate stays low across every category simultaneously.
It is constrained by operational throughput. Even where demand exists, your SOM is bounded by your OT capacity, your available beds, your doctor hours. A hospital running at 85% occupancy does not have a larger SOM. It has a capacity problem — and SOM analysis cannot fix that.
The one-line test for SOM: if your referral relationships or your OT capacity doubled tomorrow, your SOM would grow. Your SAM would not.
Back to Lucknow
Apply the framework to the cath lab decision that I started this article with.
The hospital owner’s TAM is real. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in India. Lucknow has 35 lakh people. No one is disputing the disease burden.
His SAM is considerably smaller. His hospital draws patients from adjacent localities and townships — perhaps 4 to 5 lakh people within a realistic catchment. Of those, the subset covered by payers he is actually empanelled with, who can afford a private cardiac intervention, is perhaps 60,000 to 80,000 people. Of those, the annual incidence of patients needing coronary intervention — from diagnostic angiography to full PCI — is somewhere between 400 and 600 a year. That is his SAM for the cath lab. Not 35 lakh. Four hundred.
His SOM is smaller still. Three established cardiac centres in the city have served this population for fifteen years. Their referral relationships are fixed. Cardiologists know them. General practitioners default to them. A new entrant — no established interventional cardiologist on staff, no cardiac ICU, no referral network built in this speciality — might realistically draw 8 to 12 per cent of the available cases in the first year. That is 35 to 70 procedures. At ₹80,000 to ₹1,00,000 per procedure, that is ₹30 to 70 lakh in first-year revenue against ₹3 to 4 crore in capital and ₹8 to 10 lakh per month in running costs. The SOM does not support the investment — at least not now.
None of this means the cath lab is a bad idea permanently. If the hospital builds a cardiac surgery programme, hires an interventional cardiologist full-time, earns empanelments for cardiac procedures under ECHS and the major TPAs, and spends two years building referral depth in the speciality — the SOM expands meaningfully. The cath lab eventually makes sense. But that is a five-year SOM argument. The owner is currently making a twelve-month TAM argument.
What happens when you confuse the layers
The hospital owner’s error has a recognisable shape. It appears differently in different clinics and hospitals alike, but the underlying confusion is the same.
It is a slow accumulation of decisions that each made sense individually and collectively produced a business that is busy, somewhat profitable, but structurally unable to grow.
A new wing gets built at 120 beds because the city has demand. The existing 100 beds are running at 52% occupancy. The fixed cost of the new wing runs regardless of whether the beds fill. The occupancy problem is not a capacity problem — it was a SOM problem that got treated as a TAM problem.
The hospital becomes “multi-specialty” because the TAM for every additional speciality looks large. Cardiology, neurology, nephrology, oncology. Each department is added to capture more of the market. What actually happens is that the hospital becomes known for nothing in particular. No specialist refers to a hospital with no identity. The SOM in each speciality remains shallow.
The marketing budget goes to newspaper insertions and hoardings visible to “the people of Lucknow.” The actual SOM is a filtered segment: specific catchment area, specific empanelments, specific specialties where the hospital has genuine depth. The ad reaches the TAM. It converts very little of the SOM, because the SOM was never identified and the messaging was never built for them.
The hard question
Here is the one question that separates operators who manage growth strategically from those who manage it by feel: Of the patients who chose a competitor last quarter — not all of them, but specifically the ones who were inside our catchment, covered by payers we are empanelled with, and seeking care in a specialty we offer — how many were realistically available to us?
That number is your SOM. The gap between that number of patients and what you actually admitted is your growth problem, stated precisely. It tells you whether you have a referral network problem, a brand recognition problem, an operational capacity problem, or a pricing problem. It tells you which of those to fix first.
Most operators find it hard to answer this question. They know their total admissions. They know their bed occupancy. They do not know how many patients they were in a position to win and didn’t.
That is a market definition problem. Every growth decision made without answering it — every new department, every new hire, every new empanelment pursued — is being made against a number that has never been calculated.
“The operators who grow consistently are not the ones chasing the largest market. They are the ones who have defined the smallest market they can actually win, built the referral depth and operational capacity to win it reliably, and then — only then — expanded the definition.”
Aviral Prakash
Understanding your serviceable obtainable market is the strategic starting point covered in the growth strategy guide for private clinics and hospitals in India.
Leave a Reply