Aesthetic · Benchmarks · for The Med Spa No-Show Book
Published no-show rates by setting
Every published figure The Med Spa No-Show Book quotes, with where it was measured, when, who published it and what it can't tell you about an aesthetic practice. No published study gives a no-show rate for med spas, so none of these is one.
Last checked: 12 October 2026
What changes: the MGMA figures are from polls and yearly data that MGMA updates; new studies appear. This page is re-dated when a figure changes.
Every figure is labelled published: from a public, primary source, shown exactly as the book's numbers sheet records it, with the source, its publisher, the data year and the date it was read. See the editorial policy.
None of these is a med spa rate. Every figure here was measured in a medical setting (hospital and clinic outpatients, one dermatology office, one plastic-surgery clinic, US medical groups), most of them insured or free at the point of care. They show the range and the direction of an effect, not what your practice should expect. The book's composite practice uses its own rates, each labelled as an assumption, and your own count (Chapter 1) replaces them.
Across 105 medical-scheduling studies the average no-show rate is of the order of 23%, ranging 13.2%-43.0% by continent; lead time and a prior no-show are the most-reported predictors.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C01).
In the book: Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Appendix B
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average no-show rate across 105 medical-scheduling studies (systematic review) percent of scheduled appointments |
23% Published |
review published 2018; captured 2026-10-12 |
Dantas LF, Fleck JL, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Hamacher S. No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review. Health Policy 2018;122(4):412-421. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002 (PMID 29482948). Elsevier (Health Policy); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Medical outpatient appointments, all specialties, worldwide (105 studies). Not aesthetic, not cash-pay. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/ |
| Highest continental average no-show rate in the review percent |
43.0% Published |
review published 2018; captured 2026-10-12 |
Dantas LF, Fleck JL, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Hamacher S. No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review. Health Policy 2018;122(4):412-421. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002 (PMID 29482948). Elsevier (Health Policy); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Medical outpatient appointments, all specialties, worldwide (105 studies). Not aesthetic, not cash-pay. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/ |
| Lowest continental average no-show rate in the review percent |
13.2% Published |
review published 2018; captured 2026-10-12 |
Dantas LF, Fleck JL, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Hamacher S. No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review. Health Policy 2018;122(4):412-421. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002 (PMID 29482948). Elsevier (Health Policy); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Medical outpatient appointments, all specialties, worldwide (105 studies). Not aesthetic, not cash-pay. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/ |
| Studies in the no-show systematic review studies |
105 Published |
review published 2018; captured 2026-10-12 |
Dantas LF, Fleck JL, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Hamacher S. No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review. Health Policy 2018;122(4):412-421. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002 (PMID 29482948). Elsevier (Health Policy); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Medical outpatient appointments, all specialties, worldwide (105 studies). Not aesthetic, not cash-pay. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/ |
Caveat (the book's): Medical outpatient settings worldwide, not aesthetic; shows the range and the predictors, not a med spa rate.
Two single-practice studies near the aesthetic setting: one private dermatology office 7.79% (new vs established the only significant variable); one rural plastic-surgery clinic 13.84%.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C02).
In the book: Chapter 3, Appendix B
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-show rate at one private dermatology office percent |
7.79% Published |
2007 study; captured 2026-10-12 |
Pehr K. No show: incidence of nonattendance at a dermatology practice in a single universal payer model. J Cutan Med Surg 2007;11(2):53-56 (PMID 17374315). SAGE; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Single private dermatology office, Canada (universal payer). Closest published setting to a skin practice found; still insured medical dermatology, not cash-pay aesthetics. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17374315/ |
| No-show rate at one rural plastic-surgery clinic (277 of 2,002) percent |
13.84% Published |
2022-2024 data, published 2025; captured 2026-10-12 |
Rahimpour A, Saurborn E, Murphy A, et al. No-Show Rates at a Plastic Surgery Clinic: Insights From Appalachian Healthcare Systems. Cureus 2025;17(1):e76873 (PMID 39897298; PMC11787945). Cureus (open access); full text via Europe PMC Setting: Single plastic surgeon, rural Appalachia, Oct 2022-Oct 2024, 2,002 appointments; mixed insured and self-pay; includes cosmetic (facial, body contouring) visits. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11787945/ |
Caveat (the book's): One practice each, different countries and years; brackets, not benchmarks.
US single-specialty medical groups had a 6.81% no-show rate in 2023.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C03).
In the book: Chapter 3, Appendix B
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median no-show rate, US single-specialty medical groups percent |
6.81% Published |
2023 data; captured 2026-10-12 |
MGMA Stat: No-show fees in medical practices on the rise to balance bumpy attendance rates (poll of Jan. 7, 2025). Medical Group Management Association. MGMA Setting: US medical group leaders (MGMA Stat text poll, 622 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://www.mgma.com/mgma-stat/no-show-fees-in-medical-practices-on-the-rise-to-balance-bumpy-attendance-rates |
Caveat (the book's): Medical groups reporting to MGMA; perishable; on the dated /benchmarks page.
US medical groups cancelled 19.95% of appointments in 2024 and rebooked 27.40% of cancelled visits within 30 days.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C09).
In the book: Chapter 7
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cancellation rate, US medical groups percent of appointments |
19.95% Published |
2024 data; captured 2026-10-12 |
MGMA Stat: About 1 in 3 medical groups see higher no-shows in 2026 as patients face higher costs (poll of Aug. 11, 2026). Medical Group Management Association. MGMA Setting: US medical group leaders (poll, 190 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive 2024 single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://www.mgma.com/mgma-stat/about-1-in-3-medical-groups-see-higher-no-shows-in-2026-as-patients-face-higher-costs |
| Cancelled visits rebooked within 30 days percent of cancelled visits |
27.4% Published |
2024 data; captured 2026-10-12 |
MGMA Stat: About 1 in 3 medical groups see higher no-shows in 2026 as patients face higher costs (poll of Aug. 11, 2026). Medical Group Management Association. MGMA Setting: US medical group leaders (poll, 190 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive 2024 single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://www.mgma.com/mgma-stat/about-1-in-3-medical-groups-see-higher-no-shows-in-2026-as-patients-face-higher-costs |
Caveat (the book's): Medical groups; perishable; rebooking isn't the same as same-day refill.
In one family-practice clinic, walk-ins refilled 61.0% of failed appointments and brought in 89.5% of their charges.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C10).
In the book: Chapter 7
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Share of the missed visits' charges the refills brought in percent of charges |
89.5% Published |
published 2001; captured 2026-10-12 |
Moore CG, Wilson-Witherspoon P, Probst JC. Time and money: effects of no-shows at a family practice residency clinic. Fam Med 2001;33(7):522-527 (PMID 11456244). Society of Teachers of Family Medicine; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US family practice residency clinic; 4,055 visits over 20 business days. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11456244/ |
| Failed appointments refilled by walk-ins (one family-practice clinic) percent of failed appointments |
61.0% Published |
published 2001; captured 2026-10-12 |
Moore CG, Wilson-Witherspoon P, Probst JC. Time and money: effects of no-shows at a family practice residency clinic. Fam Med 2001;33(7):522-527 (PMID 11456244). Society of Teachers of Family Medicine; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US family practice residency clinic; 4,055 visits over 20 business days. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11456244/ |
Caveat (the book's): One clinic, 2001; walk-ins, not a waitlist; refills recover less than the slot.
No-shows rise with booking lead time (2.4% at 0-2 weeks vs 6.9% at six months in one eye clinic); cutting a booking window from 12 to 4 weeks cut late cancels plus no-shows 8%-16% relative.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C08).
In the book: Chapter 6
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead time of the longest band in that study months |
6 Published |
published 2015; captured 2026-10-12 |
McMullen MJ, Netland PA. Lead time for appointment and the no-show rate in an ophthalmology clinic. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:513-516. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S82151 (PMID 25834388; PMC4370946). Dove Medical Press; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic ophthalmology clinic, 51,529 appointments, 12 months. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25834388/ |
| No-show for visits booked 6 months ahead (same clinic) percent |
6.9% Published |
published 2015; captured 2026-10-12 |
McMullen MJ, Netland PA. Lead time for appointment and the no-show rate in an ophthalmology clinic. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:513-516. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S82151 (PMID 25834388; PMC4370946). Dove Medical Press; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic ophthalmology clinic, 51,529 appointments, 12 months. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25834388/ |
| No-show for visits booked 0-2 weeks ahead (one eye clinic, faculty) percent |
2.4% Published |
published 2015; captured 2026-10-12 |
McMullen MJ, Netland PA. Lead time for appointment and the no-show rate in an ophthalmology clinic. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:513-516. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S82151 (PMID 25834388; PMC4370946). Dove Medical Press; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic ophthalmology clinic, 51,529 appointments, 12 months. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25834388/ |
| Upper end of the shortest lead-time band in the eye-clinic study (0-2 weeks) weeks |
2 Published |
published 2015; captured 2026-10-12 |
McMullen MJ, Netland PA. Lead time for appointment and the no-show rate in an ophthalmology clinic. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:513-516. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S82151 (PMID 25834388; PMC4370946). Dove Medical Press; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic ophthalmology clinic, 51,529 appointments, 12 months. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25834388/ |
| High end of that relative drop percent |
16% Published |
published 2024; captured 2026-10-12 |
Ravenscroft B, Abouee Mehrizi H, Wylie-Toal B. Effects of Booking Horizon Reduction on Cancellation Rates: An Experimental Analysis in Pediatric Outpatient Care. MDM Policy Pract 2024;9(2):23814683241298673 (PMID 39564521; PMC11574887). SAGE (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Outpatient pediatric rehabilitation, Ontario; 73,482 visits; booking horizon cut from 12 to 4 weeks (interrupted time series). Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39564521/ |
| Low end of the relative drop in late cancels plus no-shows after cutting the booking window from 12 to 4 weeks percent |
8% Published |
published 2024; captured 2026-10-12 |
Ravenscroft B, Abouee Mehrizi H, Wylie-Toal B. Effects of Booking Horizon Reduction on Cancellation Rates: An Experimental Analysis in Pediatric Outpatient Care. MDM Policy Pract 2024;9(2):23814683241298673 (PMID 39564521; PMC11574887). SAGE (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Outpatient pediatric rehabilitation, Ontario; 73,482 visits; booking horizon cut from 12 to 4 weeks (interrupted time series). Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39564521/ |
| Booking window after the change weeks |
4 Published |
published 2024; captured 2026-10-12 |
Ravenscroft B, Abouee Mehrizi H, Wylie-Toal B. Effects of Booking Horizon Reduction on Cancellation Rates: An Experimental Analysis in Pediatric Outpatient Care. MDM Policy Pract 2024;9(2):23814683241298673 (PMID 39564521; PMC11574887). SAGE (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Outpatient pediatric rehabilitation, Ontario; 73,482 visits; booking horizon cut from 12 to 4 weeks (interrupted time series). Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39564521/ |
| Booking window before the change (pediatric rehab, Ontario) weeks |
12 Published |
published 2024; captured 2026-10-12 |
Ravenscroft B, Abouee Mehrizi H, Wylie-Toal B. Effects of Booking Horizon Reduction on Cancellation Rates: An Experimental Analysis in Pediatric Outpatient Care. MDM Policy Pract 2024;9(2):23814683241298673 (PMID 39564521; PMC11574887). SAGE (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Outpatient pediatric rehabilitation, Ontario; 73,482 visits; booking horizon cut from 12 to 4 weeks (interrupted time series). Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39564521/ |
Caveat (the book's): One clinic each; direction consistent with S01's predictors.
Reminders raise attendance: text vs none RR 1.14 (attendance 67.8% / 78.6% / 80.3% none / text / call); no-show 21% vs 15% with notifications.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C04).
In the book: Chapter 4
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attendance with a phone-call reminder percent attended |
80.3% Published |
review published 2013; captured 2026-10-12 |
Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD007458.pub3 (PMID 24310741; PMC6485985). Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Healthcare appointments (RCTs; hospital and primary care); none aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24310741/ |
| Attendance with no reminder (Cochrane review) percent attended |
67.8% Published |
review published 2013; captured 2026-10-12 |
Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD007458.pub3 (PMID 24310741; PMC6485985). Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Healthcare appointments (RCTs; hospital and primary care); none aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24310741/ |
| Attendance with a text reminder percent attended |
78.6% Published |
review published 2013; captured 2026-10-12 |
Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD007458.pub3 (PMID 24310741; PMC6485985). Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Healthcare appointments (RCTs; hospital and primary care); none aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24310741/ |
| Text reminders and attendance (Cochrane review) risk ratio, attendance, text reminder vs none |
1.14 Published |
review published 2013; captured 2026-10-12 |
Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD007458.pub3 (PMID 24310741; PMC6485985). Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Healthcare appointments (RCTs; hospital and primary care); none aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24310741/ |
| No-show with no reminder (meta-analysis) percent |
21% Published |
published 2016; captured 2026-10-12 |
Robotham D, Satkunanathan S, Reynolds J, Stahl D, Wykes T. Using digital notifications to improve attendance in clinic: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6(10):e012116. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012116 (PMID 27798006; PMC5093388). BMJ Publishing Group (open access); abstract via NCBI, full text via Europe PMC Setting: Healthcare clinics (21 RCTs in primary analysis; Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, one US). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5093388/ |
| No-show with a reminder (meta-analysis) percent |
15% Published |
published 2016; captured 2026-10-12 |
Robotham D, Satkunanathan S, Reynolds J, Stahl D, Wykes T. Using digital notifications to improve attendance in clinic: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6(10):e012116. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012116 (PMID 27798006; PMC5093388). BMJ Publishing Group (open access); abstract via NCBI, full text via Europe PMC Setting: Healthcare clinics (21 RCTs in primary analysis; Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, one US). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5093388/ |
Caveat (the book's): Healthcare appointments; the effect size varies by baseline and setting.
In one US outpatient trial a call from the front desk cut no-shows more than an automated call (13.6% vs 17.3% vs 23.1% with none), calls 3 days ahead.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C05).
In the book: Chapter 4
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-show with an automated call percent |
17.3% Published |
2007 data, published 2010; captured 2026-10-12 |
Parikh A, Gupta K, Wilson AC, Fields K, Cosgrove NM, Kostis JB. The effectiveness of outpatient appointment reminder systems in reducing no-show rates. Am J Med 2010;123(6):542-548 (PMID 20569761). Elsevier (Am J Med); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic outpatient practice (randomised by appointment, n~9,835), 2007. Insured medical, not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20569761/ |
| How far ahead the trial's calls went out days |
3 Published |
2007 data; captured 2026-10-12 |
Parikh A, Gupta K, Wilson AC, Fields K, Cosgrove NM, Kostis JB. The effectiveness of outpatient appointment reminder systems in reducing no-show rates. Am J Med 2010;123(6):542-548 (PMID 20569761). Elsevier (Am J Med); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic outpatient practice (randomised by appointment, n~9,835), 2007. Insured medical, not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20569761/ |
| No-show with no reminder (outpatient trial) percent |
23.1% Published |
2007 data, published 2010; captured 2026-10-12 |
Parikh A, Gupta K, Wilson AC, Fields K, Cosgrove NM, Kostis JB. The effectiveness of outpatient appointment reminder systems in reducing no-show rates. Am J Med 2010;123(6):542-548 (PMID 20569761). Elsevier (Am J Med); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic outpatient practice (randomised by appointment, n~9,835), 2007. Insured medical, not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20569761/ |
| No-show with a call from the front desk percent |
13.6% Published |
2007 data, published 2010; captured 2026-10-12 |
Parikh A, Gupta K, Wilson AC, Fields K, Cosgrove NM, Kostis JB. The effectiveness of outpatient appointment reminder systems in reducing no-show rates. Am J Med 2010;123(6):542-548 (PMID 20569761). Elsevier (Am J Med); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: US academic outpatient practice (randomised by appointment, n~9,835), 2007. Insured medical, not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20569761/ |
Caveat (the book's): One academic center, 2007 data.
Adding an automated call to texts for high-risk bookings cut no-shows from 11.3% to 9.6%; 22% of 186 no-show patients surveyed said they didn't know they had an appointment.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C06).
In the book: Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Appendix C
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-show patients who said they didn't know they had an appointment percent of respondents |
22% Published |
2024 trial, published 2026; captured 2026-10-12 |
Kavanaugh L, Thomas S, Lynch S, et al. Automated Calls Added to SMS Reminders Reduce Missed Appointments among High-Risk Patients. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2026;7(6):CAT.25.0322 (PMID 42418615). NEJM Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Penn Medicine outpatient appointments, US, 2024 (rapid RCT, 59,994 high-risk patients). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42418615/ |
| Respondents to that question respondents |
186 Published |
2024 trial, published 2026; captured 2026-10-12 |
Kavanaugh L, Thomas S, Lynch S, et al. Automated Calls Added to SMS Reminders Reduce Missed Appointments among High-Risk Patients. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2026;7(6):CAT.25.0322 (PMID 42418615). NEJM Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Penn Medicine outpatient appointments, US, 2024 (rapid RCT, 59,994 high-risk patients). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42418615/ |
| No-show with texts plus an automated call percent |
9.6% Published |
2024 trial, published 2026; captured 2026-10-12 |
Kavanaugh L, Thomas S, Lynch S, et al. Automated Calls Added to SMS Reminders Reduce Missed Appointments among High-Risk Patients. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2026;7(6):CAT.25.0322 (PMID 42418615). NEJM Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Penn Medicine outpatient appointments, US, 2024 (rapid RCT, 59,994 high-risk patients). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42418615/ |
| No-show for high-risk bookings with texts only (health-system trial) percent |
11.3% Published |
2024 trial, published 2026; captured 2026-10-12 |
Kavanaugh L, Thomas S, Lynch S, et al. Automated Calls Added to SMS Reminders Reduce Missed Appointments among High-Risk Patients. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2026;7(6):CAT.25.0322 (PMID 42418615). NEJM Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Penn Medicine outpatient appointments, US, 2024 (rapid RCT, 59,994 high-risk patients). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42418615/ |
Caveat (the book's): One health system, a rapid trial; high-risk bookings only.
Stating the specific cost of a missed appointment in the reminder cut missed appointments from 11.1% to 8.4% (replicated).
What the book says, in its own words (claim C07).
In the book: Chapter 5
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missed appointments with the existing reminder wording (NHS trials) percent missed |
11.1% Published |
published 2015; captured 2026-10-12 |
Hallsworth M, Berry D, Sanders M, Sallis A, King D, Vlaev I, Darzi A. Stating Appointment Costs in SMS Reminders Reduces Missed Hospital Appointments: Findings from Two Randomised Controlled Trials. PLoS One 2015;10(9):e0137306 (PMID 26366885; PMC4569397). PLOS (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: NHS hospital outpatients, England (two RCTs, 10,111 and 9,848 participants). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4569397/ |
| Missed appointments when the reminder stated the specific cost of a missed visit percent missed |
8.4% Published |
published 2015; captured 2026-10-12 |
Hallsworth M, Berry D, Sanders M, Sallis A, King D, Vlaev I, Darzi A. Stating Appointment Costs in SMS Reminders Reduces Missed Hospital Appointments: Findings from Two Randomised Controlled Trials. PLoS One 2015;10(9):e0137306 (PMID 26366885; PMC4569397). PLOS (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: NHS hospital outpatients, England (two RCTs, 10,111 and 9,848 participants). Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4569397/ |
Caveat (the book's): NHS outpatients; the cost stated was the health system's, not a fee.
42% of US medical groups report using a no-show fee (622 responses, January 2025).
What the book says, in its own words (claim C11).
In the book: Chapter 8
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Responses to that poll responses |
622 Published |
poll of Jan 7, 2025; captured 2026-10-12 |
MGMA Stat: No-show fees in medical practices on the rise to balance bumpy attendance rates (poll of Jan. 7, 2025). Medical Group Management Association. MGMA Setting: US medical group leaders (MGMA Stat text poll, 622 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://www.mgma.com/mgma-stat/no-show-fees-in-medical-practices-on-the-rise-to-balance-bumpy-attendance-rates |
| Medical groups reporting a no-show fee (MGMA Stat poll) percent of medical groups |
42% Published |
poll of Jan 7, 2025; captured 2026-10-12 |
MGMA Stat: No-show fees in medical practices on the rise to balance bumpy attendance rates (poll of Jan. 7, 2025). Medical Group Management Association. MGMA Setting: US medical group leaders (MGMA Stat text poll, 622 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://www.mgma.com/mgma-stat/no-show-fees-in-medical-practices-on-the-rise-to-balance-bumpy-attendance-rates |
Caveat (the book's): A poll of medical practice leaders; use, not effect.
In a randomized trial, an announced fine for non-attendance had no effect (5% vs 5% unattended).
What the book says, in its own words (claim C12).
In the book: Chapter 8
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unattended appointments under an announced fine (Danish trial) percent unattended |
5% Published |
published 2018; captured 2026-10-12 |
Blæhr EE, Væggemose U, Søgaard R. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics. BMJ Open 2018;8(4):e019969 (PMID 29654019; PMC5988103). BMJ Publishing Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Danish public hospital outpatient clinic (first appointments), 1:1 RCT, 6,746 appointments, 2015. Not aesthetic; fine after the fact, not a deposit. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29654019/ |
| Unattended appointments with no fine (same trial) percent unattended |
5% Published |
published 2018; captured 2026-10-12 |
Blæhr EE, Væggemose U, Søgaard R. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics. BMJ Open 2018;8(4):e019969 (PMID 29654019; PMC5988103). BMJ Publishing Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Danish public hospital outpatient clinic (first appointments), 1:1 RCT, 6,746 appointments, 2015. Not aesthetic; fine after the fact, not a deposit. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29654019/ |
Caveat (the book's): Danish public outpatients, a low 5% baseline; a fine, not a deposit; no aesthetic deposit study exists.
Predictive overbooking in a VA endoscopy unit raised utilisation from 86% to 100%, with a longer workday.
What the book says, in its own words (claim C13).
In the book: Chapter 9
| Figure | Value | Data | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilisation after predictive overbooking percent utilisation |
100% Published |
published 2016; captured 2026-10-12 |
Reid MW, May FP, Martinez B, et al. Preventing Endoscopy Clinic No-Shows: Prospective Validation of a Predictive Overbooking Model. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111(9):1267-1273 (PMID 27377518). Nature Publishing / ACG; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Veterans Administration outpatient endoscopy clinic, 34 weeks alternating booking methods. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27377518/ |
| Endoscopy-unit utilisation before predictive overbooking (VA) percent utilisation |
86% Published |
published 2016; captured 2026-10-12 |
Reid MW, May FP, Martinez B, et al. Preventing Endoscopy Clinic No-Shows: Prospective Validation of a Predictive Overbooking Model. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111(9):1267-1273 (PMID 27377518). Nature Publishing / ACG; abstract via NCBI PubMed Setting: Veterans Administration outpatient endoscopy clinic, 34 weeks alternating booking methods. Not aesthetic. Captured 12 October 2026 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27377518/ |
Caveat (the book's): Used a prediction model and a hospital unit; not a hunch-based double-book.
Source notes
- Dantas LF, Fleck JL, Cyrino Oliveira FL, Hamacher S. No-shows in appointment scheduling - a systematic literature review. Health Policy 2018;122(4):412-421. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.02.002 (PMID 29482948). (Elsevier (Health Policy); abstract via NCBI PubMed; Published 2018 (Scopus search; studies to ~2016); captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Medical outpatient appointments, all specialties, worldwide (105 studies). Not aesthetic, not cash-pay.
Pooled across specialties dominated by insured/public medical clinics (psychiatry, primary care, etc.); averages of heterogeneous study-level rates, not a weighted population rate. Nothing aesthetic or cash-pay. Use as the medical-outpatient context band, never as a med spa rate. - Pehr K. No show: incidence of nonattendance at a dermatology practice in a single universal payer model. J Cutan Med Surg 2007;11(2):53-56 (PMID 17374315). (SAGE; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Published 2007; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Single private dermatology office, Canada (universal payer). Closest published setting to a skin practice found; still insured medical dermatology, not cash-pay aesthetics.
One office, one payer model, 2007. Supports 'new patients are the risk group' as a concept and one dermatology data point. - Rahimpour A, Saurborn E, Murphy A, et al. No-Show Rates at a Plastic Surgery Clinic: Insights From Appalachian Healthcare Systems. Cureus 2025;17(1):e76873 (PMID 39897298; PMC11787945). (Cureus (open access); full text via Europe PMC; Published January 2025; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Single plastic surgeon, rural Appalachia, Oct 2022-Oct 2024, 2,002 appointments; mixed insured and self-pay; includes cosmetic (facial, body contouring) visits.
One surgeon, rural, mixed payer, Cureus (light peer review). Not a med spa; post-op follow-ups dominate risk. Use only as an adjacent data point, labelled. - MGMA Stat: No-show fees in medical practices on the rise to balance bumpy attendance rates (poll of Jan. 7, 2025). Medical Group Management Association. (MGMA; Poll January 7, 2025; DataDive figures for 2019-2023; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: US medical group leaders (MGMA Stat text poll, 622 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic.
Opt-in text poll of MGMA members; self-reported improvement, not causal. DataDive methodology and sample are not public on this page; insured US medical groups. Fee 'improvement' gap must not be presented as a fee effect. - MGMA Stat: About 1 in 3 medical groups see higher no-shows in 2026 as patients face higher costs (poll of Aug. 11, 2026). Medical Group Management Association. (MGMA; Poll August 11, 2026; DataDive 2024 data; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: US medical group leaders (poll, 190 applicable responses) plus MGMA DataDive 2024 single-specialty aggregate. Not aesthetic.
Small opt-in poll; DataDive cancellation measure mixes patient- and practice-initiated cancels (MGMA's own caveat). Also relays a Tebra vendor survey (held out). - Moore CG, Wilson-Witherspoon P, Probst JC. Time and money: effects of no-shows at a family practice residency clinic. Fam Med 2001;33(7):522-527 (PMID 11456244). (Society of Teachers of Family Medicine; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Published 2001; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: US family practice residency clinic; 4,055 visits over 20 business days. Not aesthetic.
2001, one residency clinic, walk-ins not a waitlist; 20 days of data. Shows the mechanism (refills are partial by time and value), not an aesthetic refill rate. - McMullen MJ, Netland PA. Lead time for appointment and the no-show rate in an ophthalmology clinic. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:513-516. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S82151 (PMID 25834388; PMC4370946). (Dove Medical Press; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Published 2015; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: US academic ophthalmology clinic, 51,529 appointments, 12 months. Not aesthetic.
Single academic eye clinic; two very different populations (resident vs faculty clinic). Shows direction and that the gradient depends on the population; does not give a med spa rate. - Ravenscroft B, Abouee Mehrizi H, Wylie-Toal B. Effects of Booking Horizon Reduction on Cancellation Rates: An Experimental Analysis in Pediatric Outpatient Care. MDM Policy Pract 2024;9(2):23814683241298673 (PMID 39564521; PMC11574887). (SAGE (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed; Data June 2021-October 2023; published 2024; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Outpatient pediatric rehabilitation, Ontario; 73,482 visits; booking horizon cut from 12 to 4 weeks (interrupted time series).
Observational ITS in one pediatric rehab organization; publicly funded. Treatment-series aesthetics book further ahead by design; use as a concept and a modest effect size, not a promise. - Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD007458.pub3 (PMID 24310741; PMC6485985). (Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Searches to August 2012; published 2013 Issue 12; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Healthcare appointments (RCTs; hospital and primary care); none aesthetic.
Low-to-moderate quality, heterogeneous trials; 2013 (searches 2012). Reminders for booked medical appointments; nothing on deposits, aesthetics, or message timing (the authors flag timing as unreported). The per-arm attendance rates are pooled across different trials, not one population. - Robotham D, Satkunanathan S, Reynolds J, Stahl D, Wykes T. Using digital notifications to improve attendance in clinic: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6(10):e012116. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012116 (PMID 27798006; PMC5093388). (BMJ Publishing Group (open access); abstract via NCBI, full text via Europe PMC; Searches 2005 to 25 April 2015; published October 2016; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Healthcare clinics (21 RCTs in primary analysis; Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, one US). Not aesthetic.
Only one US study; public and academic clinics. The multiple-notification finding is for attendance only; for no-shows the difference was not significant (abstract states the attendance result without that caveat). Does not test deposits, timing, or wording. - Parikh A, Gupta K, Wilson AC, Fields K, Cosgrove NM, Kostis JB. The effectiveness of outpatient appointment reminder systems in reducing no-show rates. Am J Med 2010;123(6):542-548 (PMID 20569761). (Elsevier (Am J Med); abstract via NCBI PubMed; Appointments spring 2007; published 2010; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: US academic outpatient practice (randomised by appointment, n~9,835), 2007. Insured medical, not aesthetic.
One academic practice; automated message was a recorded phone call (2007), not two-way SMS. Note: a vendor page (V15) cites this paper as JGIM and as a 48-hour reminder; it is Am J Med and the reminder was 3 days ahead. - Kavanaugh L, Thomas S, Lynch S, et al. Automated Calls Added to SMS Reminders Reduce Missed Appointments among High-Risk Patients. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2026;7(6):CAT.25.0322 (PMID 42418615). (NEJM Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Trial 2024; published May 2026; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Penn Medicine outpatient appointments, US, 2024 (rapid RCT, 59,994 high-risk patients). Not aesthetic.
Case-study article (NEJM Catalyst) reporting a health-system rapid trial; insured academic medicine; high-risk targeting via an EHR model. Reason survey is small (186) and self-reported. - Hallsworth M, Berry D, Sanders M, Sallis A, King D, Vlaev I, Darzi A. Stating Appointment Costs in SMS Reminders Reduces Missed Hospital Appointments: Findings from Two Randomised Controlled Trials. PLoS One 2015;10(9):e0137306 (PMID 26366885; PMC4569397). (PLOS (open access); abstract via NCBI PubMed; Trials Nov 2013-May 2014; published 2015; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: NHS hospital outpatients, England (two RCTs, 10,111 and 9,848 participants). Not aesthetic.
Free-at-point-of-care NHS; the message named the cost to the health system, which has no direct analogue in a private practice. Supports 'wording changes outcomes'; does not support any particular aesthetic script. - Blæhr EE, Væggemose U, Søgaard R. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of fining non-attendance at public hospitals: a randomised controlled trial from Danish outpatient clinics. BMJ Open 2018;8(4):e019969 (PMID 29654019; PMC5988103). (BMJ Publishing Group; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Trial May-Nov 2015; published 2018; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Danish public hospital outpatient clinic (first appointments), 1:1 RCT, 6,746 appointments, 2015. Not aesthetic; fine after the fact, not a deposit.
Low baseline, small fine, public system, post-hoc fine (not prepayment). Leibner 2023 (S21) reports 79% of fines went unpaid. Says nothing about prepaid deposits in cash-pay practices. - Reid MW, May FP, Martinez B, et al. Preventing Endoscopy Clinic No-Shows: Prospective Validation of a Predictive Overbooking Model. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111(9):1267-1273 (PMID 27377518). (Nature Publishing / ACG; abstract via NCBI PubMed; Published 2016; captured 12 October 2026)
Setting: Veterans Administration outpatient endoscopy clinic, 34 weeks alternating booking methods. Not aesthetic.
Procedure clinic with a validated risk model and short-notice patient pool; aesthetic overbooking collides with provider-specific, room- and device-specific bookings and patient experience. Evidence for the trade-off, not a recommendation to overbook.
Back to the companion page for The Med Spa No-Show Book, or run the empty-slot calculator. Its figures here are recorded in the book's foundation files (commit 6c20093e).