Skip to content
FonteumThe Graph

By use case

Exclusion & monitoring (self-serve)Free roster screen — no accountExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligence

By buyer

Compliance & riskJournalists & newsroomsDevelopers & AI teams

By industry

HealthcareProviders & facilitiesSanctionsOFAC / EU / UK / UN / OIG / SAMFederal contractingSAM · USASpending · FAPIIS

The capability layer

APIREST + bulk accessFor AI agentsModel Context Protocol serverFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAudit packSigned report artifacts; source facts remain separately citedReconciliationSource-vs-source diffsAI answers with sourcesHow records link upHistoryRetained versions for named sources

The differentiator

Coverage & sourcesThe catalogFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareFacility qualityAI answers, comparedBrowse all datasets →
Research

The dev on-ramp

DocsAPI referenceConnect your AI agent (MCP)One-paste installFHIR sandboxLive API surfaceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inFree roster screen →Get a signed certificate →

Solutions

Exclusion & monitoring (self-serve)Exclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & provider-data enrichmentAudit evidence & defensible programsProvider data for AI / RAGM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskJournalists & newsroomsDevelopers & AI teamsHealthcareSanctionsFederal contracting

Platform

APIFor AI agentsFHIR R4 APIBulk exportAudit packReconciliationAI answers with sourcesHow records link upHistory

Data

Coverage & sourcesFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareAI answers, comparedBrowse all datasets →
Research

Developers

DocsAPI referenceConnect your AI agent (MCP)FHIR sandboxQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrations
Pricing
Sign inFree roster screen →Get a signed certificate →

Composite quality score

93.02%

Dated output from Fonteum's published quality model.

Across 5 selected source families, model observation 2026-07-13. Inputs can be stored quality rows or documented fallback baselines when live rows are unavailable. Page revalidation runs hourly, but that does not mean an upstream source or model input refreshed hourly. This score is not a currentness or accuracy certification; the machine-readable twin lives at /quality.json.

Add Fonteum to your agent →

Per-source quality-model sub-scores

NPPES (NPI registry)

94.2%

Completeness 99.1 · Consistency n/a

Match rate n/a · Timeliness 89.3

Model observation Jul 13

OIG LEIE exclusions

66.0%

Completeness 99.8 · Consistency n/a

Match rate 98.1 · Timeliness 0.0

Model observation May 26

CMS PECOS PPEF

88.0%

Completeness 97.4 · Consistency n/a

Match rate n/a · Timeliness 78.6

Model observation Jun 28

CMS Open Payments

83.8%

Completeness 96.2 · Consistency n/a

Match rate n/a · Timeliness 71.4

Model observation Apr 15

CMS Care Compare

92.2%

Completeness 98.7 · Consistency n/a

Match rate n/a · Timeliness 85.7

Model observation May 25

Methodology

How we score

The composite is a weighted mean of four sub-metrics — completeness, consistency, match rate, and timeliness. Inputs can be stored metric rows or documented fallbacks; observation dates do not prove source freshness.

Read methodology v1.2→Download PDF (227KB) ↓

Section 1

Per-source completeness

For each source, the median proportion of public-displayable required fields that are non-null and non-empty in the documented measurement. The date below is a stored row-count observation or fallback-baseline date, not necessarily an upstream release or a fresh completeness scan. See the methodology for sampling and fallback behavior.

Source familyMeasurement / observation dateRow countMedian field completeness
NPPES (NPI registry)2026-07-139.0M99.1%
OIG LEIE exclusions2026-05-2668K99.8%
CMS PECOS PPEF2026-06-283.0M97.4%
CMS Open Payments2026-04-1513.4M96.2%
SAM.gov entities2026-05-201.2M95.3%
HRSA HPSA shortage areas2026-07-0179K99.5%
CMS Care Compare2026-05-2542K98.7%
BLS OEWS wages2026-05-014K99.8%
BEA Regional2026-04-303K99.9%
Section 2

Inter-source consistency

Where two independent federal feeds describe the same NPI, do they agree? Each rate is the share of NPIs whose normalized value matches across both sources. The denominator is the set of NPIs present in both snapshots with a non-null value on each side.

No cross-source consistency rate is published at this snapshot. The originally-specified NPPES ↔ PECOS checks join enrollment-specialty and enrollment-status fields that are not present in the provider schema, so no reproducible figure exists — and we do not publish a number we cannot recompute. The composite below is renormalized over the families that are published. See the methodology for the full correction note.

Section 3

Temporal update lag

The model reports lag values from source-release and ingestion timestamps when at least two valid rows are available in the trailing 90 days. Otherwise it displays the documented fallback baseline. These values are model inputs, not a current SLA or proof that every source has a recent ingest.

Source familyMedian lagp95 lagWindow
NPPES (NPI registry)18 h64 h90 d
OIG LEIE exclusions306 h582 h90 d
CMS PECOS PPEF36 h96 h90 d
CMS Open Payments48 h120 h90 d
SAM.gov entities24 h72 h90 d
HRSA HPSA shortage areas24 h72 h90 d
CMS Care Compare24 h96 h90 d
BLS OEWS wages72 h168 h90 d
BEA Regional72 h168 h90 d
Section 4

OIG LEIE byte-level match rate

The quality-model block reports matching stored source and upstream SHA-256 values in 51 of the last 52 weekly snapshots — a 98.1% byte-level agreement. When live comparison rows are unavailable, this block uses its documented fallback baseline; it is not evidence of a current-file comparison.

98.1%

51 / 52 weekly snapshots · Mondays

Section 5

Methodology

The composite is a weighted average — 35% completeness, 30% consistency, 20% timeliness, 15% OIG LEIE byte match — pinned at methodology version quality/v1. A family with no reproducible value (currently consistency) is dropped and the remaining weights are renormalized, so the headline never absorbs a missing family as a zero. The methodology identifies formulas, denominators, and fallback inputs; readers should not treat the page-revalidation time as a source date.

Read the full methodology →

Machine-readable twins: /quality.json (schema.org Dataset) · /api/v1/quality · Methodology pointer: https://fonteum.com/quality/methodology

READY TO SHIP

Add federal-data citations to your agent in 60 seconds.

Connect the hosted MCP server to your agent, or call the API with an issued bearer credential. See the developer docs for the current public contract.

Add Fonteum to your agent →Request pilot access
See also
  • HH Quality Analysis
  • Care Quality

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-07-15

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
35sources liveCrosswalk-resolved sources with a snapshot in the preceding 45 days
111sources integratedActive registry rows; integration does not establish a load
13state Medicaid jurisdictionsDistinct states represented in the state-exclusions serving table

Built on the authoritative federal record

The primary sources, named on every page.

These are the federal agencies whose public datasets Fonteum ingests and attributes — the issuing authorities, not customers or partners. Every figure on the site links back to one of them.

  • CMS
  • HHS-OIG
  • HRSA
  • FDA
  • NLM
  • NUCC
  • Census
  • BLS
  • BEA

See the full source registry, with license and refresh cadence for each →

Reproducible by design

Published figures name their source and date.

Source and date

Published research identifies its government file and observation date. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is disclosed separately; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Reproducible SQL

Each study ships the exact query behind its figures, run against the same dated copy of the federal file we used. Re-run it yourself.

Daily observations

The platform records table row counts daily. Those observations detect local drift; they do not imply that an upstream publisher released or Fonteum ingested new data that day.

Named medical review

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

Read the full provenance and attestation methodology →

Fonteum
Platform
Platform overviewAPIFor AI agents (MCP)FHIR R4 APIBulk exportAudit packReconciliationAI answers with sourcesHow records link upHistory
Solutions
All solutionsExclusion & sanctions screeningCredentialing & enrichmentAudit evidenceProvider data for AI / RAGUse casesM&A & network diligenceCompliance & riskJournalists & newsroomsDevelopers & AI teams
Data & sources
Coverage & sourcesBrowse all datasetsState Medicaid exclusionsFreshnessMethodologyCare CompareNursing homesRecall recordsSanctions screeningOIG LEIE listOwnershipStaffingDeficienciesSpecial Focus Facilities
Federal contracting
OverviewAwards during active exclusionFederal debarment scorecardProcurement questionsContractor lookup8(a) certification guide
Developers
Developer hubDocsAPI referenceQuickstartStatusChangelogSDKs & integrationsWebhooks
Research & guides
Research hubLearnHow it worksGuidesHealthcare provider dataExclusion & sanctions screeningProvider credentialing dataHealthcare data for AIHospital margin gapProvider access gapsGlossaryComparisonsSourced data vs plain LLM answersCitationsManifestoWhy Fonteum
Company
AboutPressCustomersPricingContactEditorial policyCorrections
Trust & legal
TrustTrust markQualitySecurityPrivacy policyTerms of serviceAPI termsMedical disclaimer

Reviewed by Jennifer Montecillo, MD, medical reviewer. Non-practicing medical reviewer.

© 2026 Fonteum LLC. All rights reserved.

·hello@fonteum.com

A public-records graph that exposes source and observation metadata where supplied.

Fonteum's provenance ledger contained 26.2M source-linked facts on July 12, 2026. All but 14 carried a source-file SHA-256; 0 linked deterministically to a signature. Inspect a supplied snapshot id at fonteum.com/verify · source-mark coverage and limitations.
Request access→