Transcript
Nick Scallion (00:00) hey, Amanda. Good to see you again. Hey, Don. How are y’all, doing?
Don Borchert (00:10) Well, it’s Friday.
Nick Scallion (00:12) It’s a good Friday. I know. Good Friday. There you go. You took it out. Took it out of my mouth.
Don Borchert (00:20) I was telling the last people where I was talking to, I was talking to our lenders and we were at an event last night for my son and band, and one of the, I was sitting next to one of the parents and his daughter asked, she’s like dad, like I don’t want to go to school tomorrow, like it’s good Friday. It’s a religious holiday, like I want to stay home and he said, well, okay, if you can tell me right now without googling it, why is it called? Good Friday? I’ll let you stay at home.
Nick Scallion (00:51) I would love to hear the.
Don Borchert (00:52) Response boom. She went to school today.
Nick Scallion (00:58) Yeah, to be expected. I was expecting something along the lines of like we’ve got final four coming up this weekend or something. Yeah.
Don Borchert (01:08) Yeah, yeah.
Nick Scallion (01:11) Will you be, are you into the March madness stuff?
Don Borchert (01:14) I’m heavily into the March madness. I’m an Arkansas fan.
Nick Scallion (01:18) Okay. Cal. There you go.
Don Borchert (01:20) Cal, yep, acuff. And Amanda’s a huge Florida fan.
Nick Scallion (01:27) Okay. We.
Don Borchert (01:28) won’t talk about what fan mony roots for, because it’s still a little fresh for him right now, if you can imagine the team that got ousted.
Nick Scallion (01:43) Potentially blue in the colors. I won’t. Yeah.
Don Borchert (01:45) Yeah, they’re kind of devilish.
Nick Scallion (01:48) Okay. Yeah.
Don Borchert (01:49) Yeah.
Mony Iyer (01:50) The wound’s.
Don Borchert (01:53) still, pretty fresh for him.
Nick Scallion (01:55) It is very bad by the way I.
Mony Iyer (01:58) appreciate it. So.
Nick Scallion (02:00) Being a fan of duke has had plenty of riches and rewards though. So, I’m only going to give you so much sympathy there.
Don Borchert (02:06) Yeah, it’s true.
Nick Scallion (02:08) It’s kind.
Don Borchert (02:09) Of way better than Arkansas, so.
Nick Scallion (02:11) Yeah. There you go. New face on the medallion side, Cameron Mccormick is our VP of sales and partnerships that I report into. And so worked with Cameron on the business value assessment that we prepared for today’s, conversation and some of the pricing as well. So, just wanted to have some alignment and get a chance to meet you folks as well. Wonderful. Yeah.
Mony Iyer (02:33) Good to meet you, Cameron. You know, our organization is led out of, you know, Amanda’s leadership and, you know, Amanda and Don kind of lead this particular area. And as you can see, I like to be both philosophically and visually aligned with my CFO so excited… to meet you, Cameron and jump into.
Nick Scallion (02:57) This discussion? Yeah, great.
Cameron McCormick (03:00) To meet you all, I did notice that and I’m going to have to try that with Nick next week.
Nick Scallion (03:06) You?
Don Borchert (03:07) Caught me on a dress up day because I had to talk to our lenders this morning. So otherwise, I’m normally hanging out in a T shirt, but I put the shirt on. I might as well just leave it on all day.
Cameron McCormick (03:18) Yeah. Well, looking good on a Friday.
Don Borchert (03:21) On a good Friday.
Nick Scallion (03:23) Exactly. So cool. Guys. I just for the agenda, we’ve got 27 minutes left here. So we left our first conversation with, hey, if there’s some financial benefit of a medallion partnership, let’s continue conversations first and foremost, wanted to get Amanda a demonstration of medallion to at least understand how we could operationalize the workflows that you folks have today. So we checked that box for about an hour with Amanda and then she was helpful enough to produce some metrics, high level, right? This can be iterative. But just trying to get a sense of what is the operational expenditure today? What does the volume of payroll look like? What are the turnaround times? So that’s what we’ll present. And I think by the end of this, we should know if there’s enough mutual alignment to continue the conversation or not. So this slide deck, feel free to take notes, but I’m going to share this after the call as well. So we’ll run through this and I want this to be iterative if anything’s off sides, let us know, right? Some of this is going to be based off assumptions, try to be conservative, but sometimes that’s not the case. So, is that anything else you guys wanted to cover here while we have the time?
Don Borchert (04:19) Nope, lower the cost the better go.
Nick Scallion (04:23) Sorry, what’s that I?
Don Borchert (04:24) Said lower the cost the better go all.
Nick Scallion (04:26) Right there we go. There we go. Cameron, keep yours up. Cameron has been daily stand up with Don, your counterpart, our CFO over here. So he’ll take that feedback back. Cool and look so just like kind of why we’re here like again, don’t need to belabor this but I think it’s just helpful to level set. And I think medallion’s ultimately partnering with organizations that are onboarding lots of providers. And I think that has a couple ramifications. One, the team that supports that onboarding with payer enrollment and credentialing you know, has to grow proportionately. And two, it’s really tough to manage thousands of payer enrollment applications at scale, right? And that can lead to ramifications with either an Ar backlog or in the worst case, a claim write off, right? Care that’s ultimately not reimbursed. So today, that’s taking about three or four months for agfloran, you know, and you’re trying to keep providers on the sidelines until they’re in network. But, you know, sometimes patient demand will outweigh who’s available to see the patients. And so in worst case, yeah, there can be some revenue forfeited. Don, I think this is kind of what you lightly mentioned on the first conversation where some of the technician revenue can be forfeited. So, right there’s another side of the coin, right? Like this is like a hard number that’s hitting the bottom line in red if there are denials, I think one piece that’s a little fuzzier but still important to a lot of organizations we talk to is this idea of revenue acceleration if providers were network faster and we were historically keeping on the sidelines, is there revenue that we can then capture that we can quantify? And so, yeah, I think in terms of like medallion’s alignment, right? Acorn is seeing the benefit of some of the credentialing efforts that you folks are setting up with verifiable where they’re owning the end to end credentialing of getting those files back in a day or so, which is exactly where medallion comes in on the performance front. But we’re also doing the same for the enrollment where we are owning the compilation of the applications, submitting them to the payers and following up until we get that par approval status. And so you’ll see on the following slides, we’re seeing a reduction of about 30 days based on what you folks are seeing today. And I know that medicaid is going to be a big driver for you folks, it’s probably your biggest payer reimbursement stream. And there’s also some dependencies on the commercial side as well. So that’s sort of the speed side. And I kind of alluded this on the scale side. Yeah, Tennessee, you’ve got 30 plus payers, but we’re talking about a lot of volume and yes, delegation will get some of that workload down. But again, medicaid is not going to allow for delegation. And there’ll still be some of those commercial dependencies. So pay enrollment’s going to be around regardless. And so I think, you know, the idea being is medallion’s kind of like a utility. We’re going to have a service level agreement that guarantees performance improvements, but also the ability to handle your scale. So even if that number is going to go down there’s, still going to be thousands of enrollments, you know, maybe a couple 100 going out a week, right? So we can still guarantee the turnaround times there. And as a result, you know, we only really forecast that a single administrator would be required to support this scope of work. So I’ll take a quick pause. Anything misaligned here. Am I missing any other things that you folks would like to fix if you had a magic wand?
Don Borchert (07:22) I just want to make sure I understood what you said there. You think that with the turnover that we have, we would be able, we only need one person for the 100 plus credentialing that we have to do every month.
Nick Scallion (07:36) Yeah. And I think I didn’t yeah, that’s right? I mean, I think what you’re ultimately seeing with medallion is that we’re going to the onboarding will be similar to what it is with verifiable today. So we’re going to pull information from caqh and other data sources to get information. And the provider is going to work with the administrator to fill their profile up. And then the work that the administrator is ultimately responsible for is requesting a credentialing file which is two clicks of a button and the same is applied to payers. So, okay, dr or tech Don is in Tennessee, we know he’s licensed there. So these are the payers he’s typically enrolled with, we can do a mass request for the enrollments, and then from there, medallion takes over for the rest.
Don Borchert (08:14) Okay. Just real quick, Amanda from the review and the demo that you had, do you agree with that? That you don’t only need one person? I just want to make sure that as we go through like you’re kind of signed off on like, hey, what I saw, yep one makes sense.
Amanda May (08:35) Yes and no. So we would need.
Don Borchert (08:39) Let’s get to the no part. We.
Amanda May (08:41) Would need at least one person to do that. But there’s going to be other components of the responsibility that they would still have to perform. So we would probably have to carry two. I would say if we did this, we would have to have somebody to do most of this legwork like this and then interface with the payers as well maintain, you know, communication. So we do have payers that come to us, you know, multiple times a month asking for rosters, things like that. So we’re going to need somebody to be able to generate those crcs and orrs. We’re still going to have to do ourselves. So there is going to be, okay. So there’s.
Don Borchert (09:26) a little bit more that’s involved with it, but it doesn’t it’s not like it goes from one to five. It’s one to two. Okay. Got it. Yep. Perfect.
Nick Scallion (09:33) And I would just a couple of things I heard on that feedback that I would just call out. So not all the payer correspondence medallion’s going to handle. But one thing I would mention is that I’m sure many of your admins I mean, are spending time per week following up with the payers. And so medallion has built in automation, right? So we have AI phone calling and emails as well as portal scrapers trying to do that follow up so that responsibility would be taken away. And then on the roster side in the proposal, we also did include roster generation. So we produce those rosters. So again, you listed six things. I’m not suggesting that we’re going to handle all six of those, but just supporting where we can with what’s in scope for medallion.
Amanda May (10:09) Which is why I think we could do it with two individuals… because I think, you know, we have the roster generation and verifiable right now, it works, but there is still cleanup that has to be done on that. So, I mean you do still need a person to be able to do some of that, but I do think that there would be benefit to having it. So it would greatly reduce. Obviously, I wouldn’t have to carry, you know, five people to do all of that. You know, with medallion taking the bulk of the lion’s share of that workload. We absolutely could do it with probably one to two.
Nick Scallion (10:49) Perfect prada saw you come off mute. Yeah.
PradSekar_m3yhvfp (10:51) I just wanted to confirm you got there. Is this, there is the solution that exists here for also reminders, to the therapists to providers as well, right? To when it comes to logging in, filling in the information complete because that often tends to be the backlog. And what normally our staff would do is following up to remind them, hey, you have to complete, you have to complete and I think that can be automated through the system as well, right?
Nick Scallion (11:16) Yeah. And that’s yeah, absolutely one.
Amanda May (11:19) Piece of feedback that I will give even if we do automate it like that, I have to have a person patching in because we have that right now with verifiable right now. Verifiable, let’s take CPR certifications, for example, we automatically email providers and their clinical directors when CPR certifications are coming due. I still have to have a person coming behind them and consistently managing that portion to ensure that it is compliant. So again, it would be helpful to have that automation, but I need a person to be able to ensure compliance.
Nick Scallion (12:01) Makes sense. And we can look at the staffing there and make some recommendations on what the day to day looks like and what we would be responsible for and what your team would do to more accurately forecast the staffing. I think I’ll move on here. Just I kind of mentioned you know, anecdotally where we’re looking at performance improvements. And so I’m trying to just lay out again there’s a lot of stuff going on here that is within mediation control and not. And so I think what we’re seeing with the, you know, of course, the biggest bottleneck is getting that provider data. Amanda mentioned that depending on the provider type, it’s taking two to five days on average medallion across all provider types is seeing less than two days to get all the documentation required for credentialing and payer enrollment. And then that moves on to credentialing. We’re going to see pretty comparable turnaround times there.
Nick Scallion (12:42) Our SLA is three business days that we guarantee to have the file ready. Though the typical performance is less than 24 hours. I think when I’m looking at the biggest driver here, it’s going to be where those direct enrollments are still required and applications are being sent. Amanda mentioned this is taking 60 to 120 days. And of course every payer is going to vary. So I looked at, you know, just some of the payers that you folks mentioned, tricare, Aetna, BCBS, cigna, Aetna, medicaid, and then the states, right? All the states that you folks are operating in, we’re seeing as little as 12 days for medicaid in some of those states. But the average that we’re seeing is about 59 point four days from submission to get that approval. So rounded up to 60 days there where you can see the 30 day improvement, knowing that medicaid’s going to be the biggest driver. I think if we want to tighten this up, I’d like to maybe just see if we can get a state by state analysis on the medicaid enrollment approval times. Just knowing that a, that’s probably your biggest revenue reimbursement source. And two, it’s going to be a dependency regardless of delegation. So we just if we’re going to continue conversations, I think we could hone in on there. But our average across your states with medicaid is 28 days. And then just summarizing what we mentioned on the write off sides or forfeiting that tech revenue. And then the team size. Any questions here? Nope. Cool. I tried to put something together here to quantify what doing this faster would look like. We just said it would be 30 days faster, but let’s go super conservative here and say on average 10 billing days faster. Okay? And so I put how we mapped this out here in small figures. But the idea being I know your providers are going to have reimbursement ranges that differ. But let’s assume 600 dollars per day is what they’re getting in reimbursement. Is that directionally correct?
Don Borchert (14:24) It depends… keep going through the map. We’ll see where we’re going here, right? Okay. This isn’t doing anything different on the billing side. This isn’t like profit. This is just hey you can get your cash faster, yes.
Nick Scallion (14:38) Exactly. So, like let’s assume that the 1,500 providers you’re bringing on in the next 12 months are generating 1,600 dollars per day in reimbursements. And I’ll even bring that down by 30 percent just knowing that there’s some utilization adjustment. But if, you know, every single provider we’re seeing patients in billable, one day faster, 1,500 providers would be 630,000 in revenue that’s accelerated. And then if we’re going to use that conservative 10 days faster, you know, 10 X6 hundred and thirty thousand is six point 3,000,000. So again, every org is going to see this differently. I know you folks can leverage backdating in some scenarios. So this isn’t going to be perfect. But Don, if you had like you could snap your fingers.
Don Borchert (15:14) Yeah. Just so you know, like our average right now our average revenue per day is about 400 grand.
Nick Scallion (15:19) Okay. So we can, so this is going to go down, we’re.
Don Borchert (15:21) about 100,000,000 dollar business. And so on 254 kind of billing days, it’s.
Nick Scallion (15:25) about 400 per day. Yeah. So yeah. So that would bring this down to maybe like closer to like a 4,000,000 dollar range then if we were going to look at 10 days faster, so we can adjust that follow up. So idea being here, okay, if we could remove some of that forfeiture that’s happening for non part care. And then this is going to be closer to four. Yeah, there could be a 5,000,000 dollar benefit. So idea being what would the return on investment look like? Maybe we’re directionally aligned there? And I’ve already mentioned this piece. Again, this is a good takeaway slide but the turnaround time’s being guaranteed the quality, right? Having QA in the application. So not just getting it out the door and getting it returned, right? Also doing it really accurately. So I’ll get into the proposal here for you folks. I think just in terms of level setting, this is a lot of text. I think just the takeaways here is we asked Amanda for the volumes to understand how we can get the lowest unit costs. And then what we do is we guess, you know, how much credit you would require for a three year period and you can use that credit across all of our SKUs, right? So whether credentialing picks up or pay enrollment continues for longer than expected, you’re pulling down from that credit in real time and just use it over the course of the three years. So year one is really heavy. You can pull credit into year two et cetera. So just wanted to make that piece. It’s a credit based system. And we’re not trying to penalize you for any overages if you happen to do more payroll enrollment in year one and less credentialing in year two. Idea just being get the lowest unit cost to draw down from that credit. And then these were the volumes, right? So we’ve got roughly 1,500 providers that are going to be in the system at a given time, 4,000 enrollments, not as many revalidations, and then some credentialing files, rosters on a monthly basis or ad hoc. And then the ncqa monitoring… here’s where you’re going to see. So year one is going to have. And actually Cameron and I were actually going to get this down to 20,000. So forgive me, for editing that. Year one is going to be the most expensive because there is an implementation fee. But here you’re seeing there’s the cost to store provider data within the system. We’re charging per enrollment application per revalidation per credentialing file, and then on a provider basis for the monitoring piece. So year one would be the largest investment at around 500 would be sub 500 with that 15,000 dollar adjustment we’ll make on the implementation. And so you’re seeing probably leveling off to around 475,000 per year after the implementation is completed, okay?
Don Borchert (17:45) And then,
Nick Scallion (17:46) just like in terms of right part of the reason we’re able to go, so lean on administrators that are required, just want.
Don Borchert (17:51) to shed.
Nick Scallion (17:51) Some light.
Don Borchert (17:52) One quick question on that, Nick. So when you say credit drawdown, does that mean we got you check for a 1,000,454 on day one, and then it draws down over the next three years by.
Nick Scallion (18:04) Default, the invoice schedule would be net 30 payment terms on yearly basis. So this would be your year one invoice, year two and year three. Okay. Gotcha. And then just again where I was just trying to lean with this is like, okay, we’re going to be putting a lot of faith in medallion here. And if we only have an administrator or two administrators, hopefully we’re going to be getting some support from the medallion team. A lot of this is going to be automated within the platform. But the idea being here is there’s going to be a lot of white glove service and handholding along the way. So a dedicated team up front, this implementation team is also going to be technical resources that can facilitate some of the integrations that you folks are going to require. Whether that’s billing scheduling, et cetera. Sure, there’s some type of integration that would be required that we can partner with you folks on. And then these are going to kind of be your three pillars of the ongoing support that you’re going to get engagement manager would probably be someone that Amanda is syncing with pretty frequently to talk about the enrollments that are coming up in the next week and those that we’re closing the gap on engagement manager. Would probably, I’m sorry, the account manager would probably be working more closely with you Don on an ongoing basis just to make sure that the results that we’re generating are resulting in the return on investment that we’ve forecasted here. And then customer support that’s going to be more of like a chat bot and email support that you can get on an ongoing basis as well. So just wanted to shed some light as to what the support looks like from the human element post sale as well. Okay. So that’s it, do you want me to go back to any of the slides? Anything you want to lean in on here? But that was all I had in terms of the deck today.
Don Borchert (19:34) Yeah. The hard part for us, Nick is going to be the half a 1,000,000 dollars of annual costs because if we get rid of three people or four people, it’s 150 to 200,000 dollars of annual savings. And you’re coming in at a half 1,000,000. So it would, it’s like a, it would be a negative savings for us of about 300 grand. Now, that doesn’t count if we, the 1,000,000 dollars worth of write offs that we have now like that’s where it could end up being a savings. But from a pure cost perspective, you guys are really high from where we are right now. So what’s what kind of SLA’s guarantees do we have around? Hey, you’re going to have zero write offs is there because like, I don’t know how to go to the board. And with a, hey, we’re going to take on an incremental 300,000 to 350,000 of costs, but don’t worry like I’m going to have denials that’s going to go down.
Nick Scallion (20:41) Yeah. So since we’re not actually doing the billing where we haven’t… tied our SLA is to the actual claims themselves, what we can control for is the time to enrollment. So our standard SLA is on the submissions, themselves. However we can also, and Brad, I think you were involved, in an engagement with one of the other customers as well where we can also SLA to the time to par. So again, looking at if we can actually get your full list of payers. And I know your states that you’re in, we can provide a submission to completion guaranteeing how quickly the, all of you, approvals from the payer will come in that’s where the guarantees, will kick in. And Don just real quick on the savings piece. I’m following you, the unit costs that you saw were drastically lower than we’re typically working with because I know that the whole reason we started this conversation was on opex reduction and we’re getting tougher so I’m happy to take this feedback and see if there’s any more wiggle room we can have. However did that 300 K factor in the verifiable, investment reduction? Because assuming you wouldn’t want to be.
Don Borchert (21:39) using duplicative vendors there fair point that would drop another 100 fair point. Okay. Still.
Nick Scallion (21:44) Not still not profitable there though still not.
Don Borchert (21:46) Profitable, right? But, fair call out. The other thing that we would struggle with Nick is, so, we, look, the organization has struggled over the last couple of years. We just have, we’ve gotten back to profitability. Last year was the first year that we didn’t burn cash. And this year, we’re looking to, we’re looking to grow cash. So, cash is vitally important. So, in addition to like, hey, it’s going to cost an extra 200,000 dollars. I’m, also out, instead of having my 300,000 dollars worth of cost spread out over the year, I got, from a cash perspective, I got all of it on day one. And so, that cash consideration is, well, I, obviously, I pull it as a prepaid, like all that kind of stuff like, it doesn’t affect the actual financials other than the incremental cost out that amount of cash on day one.
Don Borchert (22:44) Is something I really got to think through as well, just from a forecasting perspective to take that big of a hit that quickly. Yeah.
Nick Scallion (22:52) And that feedback is what we get from every CFO in this economy frankly. So, here you there. Good. I’m.
Don Borchert (22:57) my brethren are aligned.
Nick Scallion (23:00) No. So, so, what I would say is this like we could get down to quarterly payments. What that typically does is impact the unit fees, but knowing that we’re not going to have the ability to increase costs and continue conversations with acorn. I think the idea would be, what is kind of our best and final on unit prices and quarterly payments, Don, is how we would go, but that would be, the minimum that we could spread the payments out there’s? Not a, no customer with Medina has monthly, but we could get to quarterly. Is that more aligned with what you’re seeing with your vendors?
Don Borchert (23:28) Yeah, I would, if you guys could put that together, I think that would be helpful. It just, it would be an easier pill to swallow. If I could do, you know, 125 a quarter versus, hey, here’s a half a 1,000,000 dollars, oh.
Nick Scallion (23:42) Aligned.
Don Borchert (23:43) my other pink shirted friend likes to spend money if I tell him that there’s no money in the bank account, because I gave it all to medallion and he won’t, he’ll my shirt will turn red. So.
Nick Scallion (23:56) I was gambling, on duke to get into the final four. No, I’m just teasing. Okay. So talk.
Don Borchert (24:01) About shooting the contract in the foot.
Nick Scallion (24:03) Right there. Yeah… I’ll be shooting myself. I’ll put my foot in my mouth on that one. No under understood there. So, I think what I can do is this slide deck will be ready to share right now, I think,
Don Borchert (24:17) Where, Cameron?
Nick Scallion (24:18) And I would probably ask to buy 24 to 48 hours. So, probably until end of business Tuesday. Just figuring out if there’s anything we can do on the unit fees, and then on the quarterly payment piece as well. That would.
Don Borchert (24:29) Be great. Okay.
Nick Scallion (24:31) Cam, do you have any, any feedback here?
Don Borchert (24:35) Yeah.
Cameron McCormick (24:36) The only question that I have is, I’m curious based on what you’ve seen today, like, how close do you think we are to winning your business? If we can get the price down a little bit more? The reason I’m asking is I want to be able to communicate to our CFO who’s already given me a lot of pushback on, the proposal that we have for you today. So, I would just try and gauge your sentiment now to understand, you know, is there any more I can use?
Don Borchert (25:08) I love, I love the product. I think, Amanda, I think Amanda loves the product. The hard part is, I’m gambling on that. We’re going to have the reduction, in, in the claim denials, where we’ve got people that are, submitting claims and they’re not, and they’re not yet credentialed. That’s that’s the bet that I would be making, that’s the bet that Amanda is going to be making. Because if it doesn’t have, if it doesn’t happen, then my pink shirted friend over there is going to be like, hey, your claim hasn’t gone anywhere. You owe me another 200,000 in cost reduction to, at least to at least get back to, to break even. Yeah. And so, that’s the hard part that I have, for some reason that it doesn’t happen and we’re in a three year contract with you. I mean, as an organization, somebody else has to lose their job for another couple 100,000 bucks if it doesn’t happen. So that’s the part that, just, being straight and honest with you, Cameron, like I gotta figure out how to get through and, is that a wager, that we want to make on kulshi, or whatever, the name of the betting app is that’s out there? Is that the, is that the bet we want to make?
Cameron McCormick (26:23) That, that’s helpful? One question that I have. And sorry if I, you’ve already told Nick about this, but the denials, what is the, Amanda, maybe you have more color on this when you see a denial. Is that crucial credentialing out of network? Is that the reason that you’re seeing for those? Or, what is the issue with the denials? No?
Amanda May (26:45) It’s a timing issue with our operations team first and foremost. So, it is, the technician is ready to be placed on cases overwhelmingly, it’s technicians because that’s where the bulk of our turnover is. And you see that burn rate is really high. So, the technicians get through training, they’ve given all of their documents, but then the timing to get it over to the credentialing team and then through over to the payer by the time they put them on a case. That timing doesn’t always line up.
Don Borchert (27:21) And that’s where we have the most of it. Okay? So.
Cameron McCormick (27:25) Just just making sure I have that correctly. It’s you’re essentially, you’re providers are seeing patients before they’re par with the payer, and that’s where the write offs come from that’s.
Amanda May (27:36) right. Or there’s on.
Don Borchert (27:37) A network, yeah.
Amanda May (27:38) Yeah, or it’s also the re enrollment. So Florida medicaid, you have to re, enroll a provider every five years. So, if they come to us and it’s year four for them and they join our organization, we’re going to have to recred them, you know, during, their tenure with us. So ensuring that all of those metrics are captured, maintained, reviewed and are executed on, is challenging with a small team for sure. Is that something that you all would do as well as re enrollments?
Cameron McCormick (28:12) Yeah, we call them re validations, but we can auto, we can put those on auto autopilots just based off of an depending each payer has a little bit different, but generally it’s like we’ll.
Don Borchert (28:25) give you.
Cameron McCormick (28:25) visibility 90, 60, 30 days into the re validation date. And then if you so choose to, you can put those on automatic re validation and we’ll just process them in advance of that date without you needing to manage it.
Don Borchert (28:41) So, just giving you, where I think it would have to be to get to a yes, just kind of, based upon the discussion here today is I would have to have break even cost at a minimum in year one such that I can then validate after we get there that these incremental savings would happen. Yeah, like we’re that we’re going to get those, then I can be like check like I’m good. And if, for some reason, that is not happening Canberra because like everything you guys are doing is great, but I’m not getting the savings because even as good as you guys are, we still have issues in the field that aren’t getting solved. So I’m not getting that. Yeah, we need to be, we need to either keep pricing the exact same way and you can’t raise it, for the next two years or, hey, if we’re getting the savings and we’re good, and probably you guys don’t know us but I’ll be honest with you and I’ll just like, hey, we went from 97 percent. Our collection rate is 97 percent. We went from 97 to 98 percent. Like we’re doing really well. Hey, we want to continue the partnership with you. Yeah. But if I don’t see because that’s what it would have to take. If I don’t see that, then, we would need to have a way to kind of take the exit ramp.
Cameron McCormick (29:59) Yeah. Okay. That’s all really helpful feedback. I very much appreciate that. One last question. And then I do have to jump and I’m sure you guys have additional calls as well. But when you say break even, are you talking about 400? Like excluding one FT? I guess what number is break even for? Yeah. So.
Don Borchert (30:22) We’re we’re because of other things, we’re going to have two ftes. So we’ll so we would drop three, each person makes about 50,000 a year. And then verifiable is 100. So I’m going to be able to drop, 250, from that. So it could be no more than, outside of the implementation fee, which is one time I get that, but the annual cost for at least year one would, could be no more than, the 250? Okay. I,
Cameron McCormick (30:50) think, we definitely can’t get to that number, but we can get significant more, much more close. And then we can also talk through the contractual guarantees of performance, specifically on accuracy and reducing your turnaround time. So, this is all super helpful. I’m going to speak to our CFO this afternoon. So, let, Nick and I have these internal conversations and then we can get back with you early next week, come back with kind of the best possible contract proposal and then walk you through it, and, you let us know your thoughts, if that works for you that.
Don Borchert (31:27) Would be fantastic. Look forward to it.
Cameron McCormick (31:29) Okay, awesome. All right. Have a great Easter. Have a great weekend. Thanks everyone. Bye now.