Skip to content
FonteumThe Graph
Fonteum · Coverage benchmark

What one source misses, measured against the record.

Fonteum publishes supported public records with available source and observation metadata across healthcare, federal procurement, sanctions and watchlists, federal enforcement, and global company registers. Active production registry status does not establish loaded, complete, or fresh coverage.

Fonteum is a multi-vertical public-records graph spanning healthcare providers, federal procurement entities, sanctions and watchlists, federal enforcement, and global company registers. The same contract applies across the graph: available source, date, and limitation metadata. Snapshot attestations are separate and do not sign individual facts.

The public alternatives — a raw NPPES download, federal

OIG LEIESource: OIG LEIE · As of 2026-05-08
-only screening, a single state list — each cover one slice of the provider record. Federal-only screening misses of state Medicaid bars, and no single exclusion list names more than of barred providers. Don’t take the coverage on faith: every number below is lifted from a published study, links back to it, and sits on federal files you can pull and re-run yourself.

Last updated: June 2026 · Sources: published Fonteum June 14, 2026 research snapshot on the OIG LEIE, CMS PECOS, SAM.gov, and ten state Medicaid exclusion lists; current loaded coverage is reported separately

Benchmark · Exclusion coverage

What each screening approach catches

In the June 14, 2026 ten-state study snapshot, no single studied list named every barred provider. Across the OIG LEIE, SAM.gov, and those programs,

10,753Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12
NPI-identified providers are excluded; the widest single source covers 64.0%. The rows below describe coverage by approach, not by vendor.

full coverage partial gap

Screening approachWhat it catchesWhat it missesField-level provenance
Raw NPPES downloadProvider identity only — NPPES carries no exclusion or sanction fieldAll barred providers — exclusion status is not in the fileFile modified date only; no per-field source or limitation
Federal OIG LEIE only of NPI-identified barred providers (64.0%) (36.0%) — including of state Medicaid barsRaw federal file; not cited field-by-field
Single state exclusion listOne state's bars — e.g. New York names providers absent from the federal listEvery other state and the federal layer; of bars sit on one layer onlyOne source, one format; no cross-source reconciliation
Fonteum source-linked graphOIG LEIE + SAM.gov + supported loaded state Medicaid lists, joined on NPI; no claim for the other statesRecords with no NPI are reported separately, not silently droppedAvailable source, date, file-hash, and limitation metadata; individual facts are not signed

Counts from the excluded-provider landscape study and the federal–state exclusion gap study. A coverage match is a screening flag for a primary-source look, not a Fonteum judgement of any provider.

The coverage deltas

Four findings a single source cannot produce

64.3%Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12

of state Medicaid bars are invisible to federal screening

In the June 14, 2026 ten-state study snapshot, of

4,851Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12
NPI-identified providers excluded across those state Medicaid programs, carry no record on the federal . An employer checking the federal list alone clears nearly two in three state-barred providers as having nothing on file.

Read the federal–state exclusion gap study

64.0%Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12

is the ceiling for any single exclusion list

In the June 14, 2026 study snapshot across the OIG LEIE, SAM.gov, and ten state Medicaid programs,

10,753Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12
NPI-identified providers are barred from a public health program — yet the widest single list names only of them. appear on only one of the three layers, so no two-list check reaches them.

Read the excluded-provider landscape study

19Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12

barred providers still hold an active Medicare enrollment

Cross-referencing the OIG exclusion list against

CMS PECOSSource: CMS PECOS · As of 2026-06-18
surfaces 19 of 6,880 in-force federal exclusions that still carry an active enrollment record — two standing over a year, one excluded since 2015. The join is the finding; a single list cannot produce it.

Read the barred-but-billable enrollment study

170Source: Fonteum research · As of 2026-07-12

order/refer-eligible providers carry an active exclusion

Of

2,008,019Source: CMS PECOS · As of 2026-06-18
providers cleared to order and refer in Medicare, 170 match an active exclusion or sanction across the OIG, SAM.gov, and the June 14, 2026 study's ten-state ring — 156 on a state list, 18 on the federal LEIE, 6 on SAM.gov. A match is a flag for a primary-source look, not a Fonteum verdict.

Read the order-and-refer exclusion study

Benchmark · Identity vs the record

Raw NPPES vs the source-linked graph

The NPPES registry is the starting point —

6.8M+Source: CMS NPPES · As of 2026-06-10
active providers; CMS publishes weekly files, while Fonteum's newest observed production system date was June 10, 2026. It is identity, not the rest of the federal record. Fonteum re-ingests the same file and joins it to the sources NPPES does not carry.

CapabilityRaw NPPES downloadFonteum source-linked graph
Provider identity (NPI, taxonomy)Yes — the NPPES file is the registrySame NPPES file; newest serving-table system date observed July 12 was June 10, 2026
Medicare enrollment statusNot in NPPESCMS PECOS, joined on NPI
Federal exclusion flagNot in NPPESOIG LEIE, joined on NPI
Multi-source exclusion / compromiseNot in NPPESSAM.gov, supported loaded state Medicaid lists, CMS CMPs, OIG integrity agreements
Facility quality, staffing, deficienciesNot in NPPESCMS Care Compare, PBJ staffing, NH deficiency citations
Per-field source trailNone — a flat file of values14-tuple chain: source, date, hash, methodology version
Freshness trackingWhole-file timestampAvailable source and observation dates, scoped by response

Every joined field carries its source name, snapshot date, and known limitation via the

14-tuple provenance contractSource: Fonteum methodology · As of 2026-07-12
. See the field-level provenance pipeline.

Why breadth, freshness, and provenance change the answer

Three dimensions a single download cannot match

Breadth

Fonteum's active production registry includes CMS, OIG, SAM.gov, USASpending.gov, OFAC, SEC, EPA, and company registers. Active status does not establish loaded, complete, or fresh coverage. A dated ten-state study found that 55.6% of matched barred-provider records appeared on only one of LEIE, SAM.gov, or those ten state lists; supported loaded state lists are reported separately.

Freshness

Sources follow different release and ingestion cadences. A daily row-count observation does not mean upstream data refreshed that day. Records expose available release, ingestion, and observation timestamps; source-file SHA-256 coverage also has disclosed gaps.

Provenance

Provenance-aware records expose the available source name, observation date, and limitations. The fourteen-field schema is nullable, and the 26.2M claim ledger currently has no deterministic claim-to-signature linkage.

FAQ

Coverage, honestly

What does federal OIG LEIE-only exclusion screening miss?
In the June 14, 2026 ten-state study snapshot, federal OIG LEIE-only screening missed of state Medicaid bars: of NPI-identified providers excluded across ten state Medicaid programs, carry no record on the federal list. Measured against every barred provider — across the OIG LEIE, SAM.gov, and ten state lists — the federal list names of , so checking it alone clears (36.0%) barred providers as having nothing on file. The gap is the cross-source population a single federal list cannot see.
How is raw NPPES different from the Fonteum public-records graph?
Raw NPPES is a weekly flat file of provider identity — NPI, name, taxonomy, address — with no exclusion field, no Medicare enrollment status, no facility quality, and no per-field source trail. The Fonteum serving table had a June 10, 2026 newest system timestamp when checked July 12. Cross-source joins occur only where participating rows publish a shared identifier. Supported loaded state Medicaid coverage is reported separately; the other states are not covered.
Is there a single list that catches every excluded provider?
In the June 14, 2026 ten-state study snapshot, no single studied list caught every excluded provider. Across the OIG LEIE, SAM.gov, and those state programs, NPI-identified providers are barred, and the widest single source — the OIG LEIE — names only 64.0% of them. of barred providers appear on only one of the three layers, so even a two-list check leaves a population uncovered. Coverage comes from reconciling the sources against one another on a shared identifier, which is what the compromised-anywhere layer does.
What does compromised-anywhere coverage add beyond exclusion lists?
Compromised-anywhere coverage adds the layer between fully clean and formally excluded. Beyond the barred providers, the July 12 production audit counted CMS penalty and payment-denial records across facilities, including 2,553 payment-denial records. Those 2,553 rows are not 2,553 facilities. The records carry no provider NPI, so Fonteum does not force an individual-provider join.
Are these coverage numbers independently checkable?
The figures on this page link to named Fonteum studies, which cite the government datasets and dated releases used for their joins. Readers can inspect those source notes and methods. The fourteen-field provenance schema is nullable, and no provenance fact currently links deterministically to a signature.
Does broader coverage mean Fonteum rates or flags providers itself?
No. Fonteum does not rate, inspect, endorse, or independently judge any provider, contractor, or listed party. A coverage match means a named public source lists that entity on a given date — the page reports the source record and its date, not a Fonteum verdict. Each match is a screening flag worth a primary-source look, not a Fonteum claim about the entity, and person matches are never made on name alone.
Request access

Screen against the record, not one slice of it.

Browse the underlying research free at /research, the source library at /sources, or request access for scoped exports and the FHIR API.

See also

What’s on file, by the numbers

Platform snapshot · 2026-07-22

13.4Mproviders & companiesProviders, organizations, owners, and facilities on file
26.2Msource-linked factsSource-linked field facts in the dated platform snapshot
90sources with dataDistinct snapshot source IDs with at least one positive record count
79fresh sourcesDistinct source IDs whose latest positive-data snapshot falls within 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

Integrated, with-data, and fresh-observation counts are separate. No platform-wide source-completeness count is published. Completeness is source-specific and must be evaluated against the named source's expected scope. State coverage is a separate jurisdiction measure.

Source authority is record-specific

Use the issuer named on the record.

Fonteum spans federal, state, and global public publishers. A source page or returned record identifies its issuer and dataset where that metadata is available. A platform registry count does not assign every page to one authority or establish loaded, fresh, or complete coverage.

Browse source records and their stated limitations →

Reproducible by design

Inspect the evidence each published figure actually supplies.

Source and date

Research pages expose the named public file and observation date where those fields are available. Source-file SHA-256 coverage is separate; facts do not currently link deterministically to signatures.

Available derivation

Studies with a retained release and committed derivation link the SQL or method used. Other studies state the evidence and reproduction limits they actually have.

Daily observations

Dated table row-count observations can 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 →

Request access