Transcript
Peter Bosworth (00:00) hey, Jen. Not seeing them yet, but yeah… how about I can kick us off and then introduce you?
Genevieve Seney (00:21) Perfect. Yeah, sounds good.
Peter Bosworth (00:26) And then we’ll get into it.
Peter Bosworth (00:36) All right. Oh, actually, no, they’re not here yet.
Genevieve Seney (00:55) I have my space heater on. I’m so sick of it not being warm here yet. How’s the weather been by you? Is it still cold?
Peter Bosworth (01:01) You’re still in space heater mode? Damn I.
Genevieve Seney (01:04) Mean, it’s like 45 out. So, it’s just like, you know, not warm enough to warm the house up.
Peter Bosworth (01:12) Yeah. Wow. They’re still not here. The weirdest thing about moving to Colorado is it’s like not very cold.
Genevieve Seney (01:21) I know. I feel like that’s weird. That is weird. I always anticipate it being like freezing.
Peter Bosworth (01:27) I know it’s okay here’s, Alex, okay?
Peter Bosworth (01:55) Hi, Alex.
Alex Wang (01:57) Hey, Peter. Good to be, hey.
Peter Bosworth (02:00) How are you?
Genevieve Seney (02:00) Happy Friday?
Alex Wang (02:02) Happy Friday.
Peter Bosworth (02:05) Oh, there you are. That’s awesome. And Kim is joining.
Alex Wang (02:12) I think so.
Alex Wang (02:18) She’s the one who forwarded the meeting to me. So, I think she’s joining. Okay?
Peter Bosworth (02:24) Great. We’ll give her a second. You’re in Boston. Is that right? Alex? Yeah, nice. Yeah, my brothers in charlestown love Boston. I’m going to go see them shortly, but, oh,
Alex Wang (02:40) nice. Bring your winter jackets. It’s still cold here?
Genevieve Seney (02:44) I was just saying that it’s good to meet you, Alex. My name is Jen. I’m a manager here on the account management side. I literally just said to Peter, I have my space heater on today. I’m in jersey, so, it’s.
Peter Bosworth (02:55) like disappointing.
Genevieve Seney (02:55) That, there’s no spring yet?
Alex Wang (02:58) Oh, yeah, very disappointing. And very, it’s a horrible year in terms of weather this year.
Genevieve Seney (03:06) 100 percent.
Kimwaters (03:09) Hey, guys. Sorry, I was fighting with zoom.
Alex Wang (03:12) Hi, Kim. Hey, no.
Peter Bosworth (03:14) Problem at all. We were just doing some quick introductions. I have Genevieve sini, from our side, who helps lead our account management function.
Genevieve Seney (03:23) Yeah, yeah, it’s good to meet you Kim.
Kimwaters (03:25) Yeah, good to meet you too. I’ll be on video in just a second. I got on my phone so I could not get delayed anymore, but we’re coming.
Genevieve Seney (03:33) No worries.
Peter Bosworth (03:36) No worries. Well, we appreciate you both taking the time.
Kimwaters (03:41) So, wanted.
Peter Bosworth (03:42) To just quickly orient us for today’s, call. So obviously we’re underway with implementation and everything seems to be trending in the right direction there, looking optimistic about the timelines and everything. As far as today, just during the implementation process, we wanted to just discuss some kind of what you are currently contracted for and potentially what. Sorry. Let me just let Kim’s other device in and some additional needs that propped up during implementation conversations. We also have product overview slides for those different things if we want to jump into that. But really it’s about just realigning and making sure that we are capturing everything that we’ll be doing for AMC. So this is my agenda for the call. Anything else Alex or Kim that you’d like to cover on today’s call?
Alex Wang (04:41) All good on my end.
Peter Bosworth (04:43) Okay. Awesome.
Kimwaters (04:46) So really?
Peter Bosworth (04:48) In terms of scoping, the first thing we wanted to discuss was the rosters. So, you know, in the contract there’s four delegated rosters that were purchased kind of identified that there’s 14 unique roster templates that were provided in medallion, we handle the like ncqa, provider credentialing specifically for AMC. And so for those payers that you have delegated agreements with, and however many specific templates they give you. So of these 14 that were shared by Manya to our team, do you know how many of those are provider versus facility? It seems like.
Kimwaters (05:33) I think they’re all provider. We can go back and double check, but I’m pretty sure they’re all provider rosters. So when we say facility credentialing, it’s more like it’s an rhc certification. It’s less of like, you know, it’s less of like a hospital type certification. It’s not that it’s not what you would do for like an asc or anything like that. It’s more like specific to rural health just getting designated as a rural health facility. So, and… then from a delegation standpoint, there are four, there are four payers that we are delegated with, which may be where the disconnect was. So four payers and then a couple of them required a different roster per state which is getting the 14. I think.
Peter Bosworth (06:33) That’s the, I think that’s it, it’s like that the payers have different rosters per state now.
Kimwaters (06:39) I don’t know. I’d have to go back and look. I have not looked at those to know like if the four… payers obviously want their own version of whatever roster looks like. But if the additional rosters per state, I would imagine they’re pretty much the same. They’re just like distinct by state. I don’t know if there’s any. I have not validated that. I don’t know if there’s anything like unique for Texas versus Arkansas or anything for like the same payer. But so I should, I would not expect it to be like a different format. So I would think it would be like four unique formats and then some payers may require it by state but we could verify that.
Peter Bosworth (07:25) Yeah. Okay. That’s a good. Let me, I would need to verify that with Naomi because I.
Kimwaters (07:31) think that like does that matter? Because I’m assuming like it’s more about, how many like templates you’re having to create versus like how many times you have to generate something?
Peter Bosworth (07:45) Yeah, Jen, are you able to speak to that in more detail? Yeah?
Genevieve Seney (07:49) So it is just any unique report. Even it’s agreed with you. I didn’t validate them. Either, it might be the same fields or same data points they’re pulling in. It is counted by each unique report though because we do need to generate them separately. And so in the system right there’s just one center for all of your credentialing. And then the output for those reports would be half to have to segment them by state. And so that’s sort of where that unique play comes in. It’s on our side to build out that component. I guess you would say of filtering the correct state by state data into those reports. Okay?
Kimwaters (08:27) Yeah. I think josh was clear with us in by the way we had a fantastic sales experience. I think like Alex and I could both agree like it felt very collaborative like very solution oriented. They did a great job. I think if I had any initial feedback, it would be like it feels like there’s a little bit of a disconnect as to maybe what was handed over to you guys in kickoff? Like maybe there’s we didn’t get a full level set at kickoff on like, hey, this is exactly what we’re doing and it didn’t we kind of just jumped right in. It didn’t necessarily feel like everybody was on the same page. We just kind of like started. So I think I appreciate this call because we’re aligned.
Genevieve Seney (09:11) Yeah, but that’s completely what we wanted to do today is just make sure like, hey, there’s these are kind of the distincts we saw during implementation. Let’s align today and clear on the path forward. So definitely hear you on that. I think sometimes during the sales process like we have the umbrellas are all right, right? Like we have all the products needed. It’s more like just ironing out the details. So, yeah, definitely aligned there, I.
Alex Wang (09:36) May be the least kind of informed on the issue. So, we’re saying, y’all are saying we purchased four. So what cost the four team? Maybe that’s the part I’m not tracking.
Kimwaters (09:52) Did you say, yeah, go ahead.
Peter Bosworth (09:56) Did you say what caused the four team? Like, where does the four team number come from? Yeah, it comes from a template that was sent over by Manya.
Kimwaters (10:08) Oops. So, Alex, we have four, we’re delegated with four payers, but some of those payers require a different roster for each state. So, while we are delegated with four payers, we’re having to generate 14 rosters, got it is the difference… and I think, it’s humana, and centene, maybe that require those separate… but.
Peter Bosworth (10:40) It’s humana and centene, and there might be another one, but yeah, devoted.
Kimwaters (10:48) Yeah.
Peter Bosworth (10:48) Yeah. So does that make sense? Alex, it?
Alex Wang (10:54) Does, so, what’s the disagreement are we like… ask blondin? Are you trying to charge us more?
Kimwaters (11:03) The basically.
Peter Bosworth (11:04) It’s like the fact that our team on the back end, our technical solutions team is going to go in and map a bunch of information to these specific roster templates. So like the fact that it’s one devoted team, the fact that devoted has four templates, like from a kind of bandwidth issue, our team is still building out four integrations. And so, the way that the SKU is designed is it’s like per template per unique template. And so, yeah, that’s what we’re raising on today’s. Call I.
Kimwaters (11:42) Think that was my question earlier like I did not validate this, but I’m assuming you guys will take a look at this if humana’s template is the same and it’s just a matter of a filter of like give it to me for everybody in Texas. But the template itself is the same like is that really a unique roster? Or is it just, hey, I’m, I’ve got one template filtered for Texas or filtered for Arkansas. Like it doesn’t we’ve built technology before. It doesn’t feel like a separate build. It feels like a filter… and I don’t know how you’re built but like it.
Genevieve Seney (12:23) Doesn’t.
Kimwaters (12:24) feel it doesn’t feel like a different. It doesn’t feel like a separate build. I.
Genevieve Seney (12:29) Don’t know enough to answer that question. We do have like a product versus template, right? Like the product still needs to be built custom to the templates. And so I think like what we’ll do is just we basically today, I want to just verify all of these things. So it sounds like there is 14 unique, call them unique reports that you guys have and they’re not facilities. So that is essentially we need 10 additional rosters.
Kimwaters (12:54) What we’ll do, I just wouldn’t call them unique reports. Like it’s I think it’s worth it’s. Worth going back and validating. If like the extra rosters… for the same payor are the same template. Then to me, that is not a unique. I mean, I understand like, yes, you have to run it for a different state, but like there’s nothing different about the template… and maybe we’re like I’m not trying to play word games with you like I think, it just, it feels from a build standpoint, it doesn’t feel like it’s unique? Yeah.
Genevieve Seney (13:25) It’s just the way that our product works. So if there are like 14 different reports, there’s 14 different templates, right? That are being powered, but I understand the ask, we’ll validate to see what the different states are, if it’s just one report, we’ll see how. I just don’t know typically again if we.
Kimwaters (13:43) Could just if you could look into that, I think that would be my ask, is absolutely what that is, and we also understand that like, we bought kind of a menu of things that we can, you know, borrow from. So, Alex, I would not expect we also are paying for 305 providers and we have like 236. So, I also think there’s room from the way that it was explained to us in the sales process to like borrow from other buckets of like what we’ve already, you know, paid for. So I wouldn’t expect additional dollars to be asked for. There should be it’s it felt like there was like flexibility of like how we use the SKUs of what we bought that could accommodate this… increase if I understood that, correct? Yes.
Alex Wang (14:37) So maybe one question is what’s the implication… of cost? I guess I don’t want to get bogged down by like maybe I guess maybe one quick question are all these four. So you’re saying we have four potential gaps?
Kimwaters (14:53) In.
Alex Wang (14:55) the original contract, I guess what’s in aggregate, the total dollar?
Peter Bosworth (14:59) Here?
Alex Wang (15:01) Yeah.
Genevieve Seney (15:01) Yeah, completely aligned here. This is why we wanted to just kind of verify. Is this correct? Is this what you need from today’s? Discussion completely aligned? We’re not looking to sort of like all of a sudden add these charges on. I think what we want to just scope is what is the additional need? Number one? Number two, of course, you can use SKU flex. I think like where we like to sort of set this stage for these things is like delegated rosters. We will need to build 10 additional reports, ongoing monitoring. There’s two different SKUs that you, we want to get you on the right one. So whether that’s just using, you know, your SKU flex dollars or is there this cost where you SKU flex into it just so that you guys are aware up front of what these other dollars are being attributed to. So it’s more just like, you know, like I said realigning today. And then from here, we’ll kind of lay out what we think this will look like for the partnership.
Alex Wang (15:58) Got it. I guess my question is like we attribute or charge to us what’s the aggregate dollar here. We’re talking about just order of magnitude wise. So I can have that context.
Genevieve Seney (16:11) Yep. So let’s continue with the other three points and then we can definitely sort of talk about what that might look like. I think, Peter, if you want to jump into the ongoing monitoring piece.
Peter Bosworth (16:22) Yeah, sure. So, the ongoing monitoring piece is pretty straightforward, just that based on our evaluation of the Andros file, there are several verifications that are included in that file that therefore will need to be included in medallion files on a go forward basis. And those are included in our comprehensive monitoring package. It’s death master verification, but it’s also social security. So, there’s ofac as well. And there’s three verifications that we need to include. So, Alex, financially, what this would look like is like you purchased this line item, we would basically just replace like credit back this line item and add this line item. So there would be, it would be like a very incremental increase.
Kimwaters (17:11) In spend, well, whenever I asked, is there anything that we could be charged for that we aren’t aware of? Like I could not have said that more than, I mean, less than like 20 times. Is there anything that you offer that we are not like, even it’s not even on the radar.
Kimwaters (17:29) We haven’t talked about that we could possibly get charged for. This. Never came up. It wasn’t like integration or other stuff like it wasn’t like, oh, there’s a different level of monitoring that we offer. Would this fit you guys better? Like that conversation never happened. So that’s.
Peter Bosworth (17:49) pretty.
Kimwaters (17:50) Frustrating. Yeah, I think completely.
Genevieve Seney (17:54) Aligned, I don’t think that there was any sort of like ill intent during your sales cycle. I think no.
Kimwaters (18:00) I don’t think that either. I think just, we obviously weren’t listening because like, if there was a more comprehensive monitoring package, you guys know, we’re headed towards delegated credentialing because we were very clear about that. You know, this should have, this should have come up as an option like, hey, this might fit you better because you’re going to be a little stricter if you’re going delegated, Alex, I don’t know if there were conversations prior to me coming on board because I did come in the middle of this, but there was, I never heard a conversation about different levels of monitoring me either. Yeah.
Alex Wang (18:36) What is staff master verification? Sorry, what is staff master verification?
Peter Bosworth (18:41) Staff master verification is just verifying, it’s a verification to see if to prevent like physicians committing fraud by billing under dead physicians. It’s a common verification… why?
Alex Wang (18:57) Do we need that? Do we think that’s an issue for AMC?
Peter Bosworth (19:01) So, there’s also ofac and CMS preclusions. These are just, verifications that were, that you’ve historically done and that were in the Andros files. And so, there was discussion about them being needed with medallion as well. If, if you can.
Kimwaters (19:19) Send me the three that you’re saying we need that are not included in the other. I can go back and find out if that’s just something we’d wanted because we wanted it or it’s required by the like delegation agreement. Okay? Because then we can have, then we can make a decision on whether we really feel like it’s needed or not perfect will do.
Genevieve Seney (19:44) Yeah. And I guess just to also add to that, like we are definitely not saying you guys, you know, have to purchase any of this. We just, this is what’s coming up during implementation and we want to make sure you’re set up successfully long term.
Alex Wang (19:56) Yeah, for sure. Okay. All right. And, I think we can just talk about, let’s talk about facility enrollment and I, for integration, we can skip over that. I don’t think we’re doing implementation right now. So.
Kimwaters (20:08) Yeah, that got squashed. I think earlier this week. Okay? We.
Peter Bosworth (20:13) Yeah, we can talk about it. So, facility enrollments essentially as, you know, we’re doing the implementation, there’s a tab that Manya and Naomi are working on and it’s about facility enrollments. And essentially, it came up that the team would need facility enrollments. And so what this is a candidate obviously for SKU flexibility. So, it’s just, you know, you purchased, you know, X 1,000 of enrollments, and as a line item typically like in the medallion contract, we would have scoped payer enrollments and then facility enrollments as a specific line item, but.
Kimwaters (20:45) Just.
Peter Bosworth (20:46) wanted to call out, that is something that it sounds like you will be needing and is definitely a candidate for SKU flexibility. So.
Alex Wang (20:55) So, the enrollment and the facility level?
Kimwaters (20:58) So, the issue with this, Alex, is we have a fee for service, we have multiple numbers for like we have multiple medicare numbers and medicaid numbers per facility one is like fee for service. And then they get a new one. When it turns to rhc. And I believe Naomi this week had said like they added that tab in because that’s how they were going to be able to accommodate the additional, those additional numbers. So, and that’s what would like show like, hey, someone is, yes, this facility has been designated rhc, and the rhc numbers would show up in that profile. Got it. Okay?
Alex Wang (21:43) Yeah. So, at the highest level, does that mean each facility will need two? Yeah.
Kimwaters (21:48) At the, basically, each location, will each practice to use like their terminology, will?
Genevieve Seney (21:54) Have two profiles?
Kimwaters (21:55) Is like the way I understand it? Yeah.
Alex Wang (21:58) Well, I’m asking that because like if we purchase like, I forgot that exact count, like say 100, does that mean like providers, does that mean under this rule, we can only enroll 50 because each provider will now need two, yeah.
Kimwaters (22:11) Each provider, each provider will only be there once, there will be, but they’ll be linked to both facilities or I guess both location profiles, if that makes sense. And that, that’s just how I understand it. You guys like tell me that, no, but that’s a half hour allowance.
Peter Bosworth (22:32) So, you have a 1,000 pay enrollments, in year one, and?
Kimwaters (22:36) So, we’ll be pulling.
Peter Bosworth (22:38) From that bucket,
Kimwaters (22:40) But, as,
Peter Bosworth (22:41) well, you know, we’re in the way the medallion contracts work is like, it’s about the spend. So, you have 350,000 in year one?
Kimwaters (22:51) So.
Peter Bosworth (22:52) In terms of the, if you, if that 1,000 was scoped, really closely in terms of just specifically pay or enrollment, then maybe we have to pull from some of the revalidations of which you have 1,700, but in.
Kimwaters (23:08) any event, it’s something that.
Peter Bosworth (23:09) we’ll be monitoring closely in terms of how you’re consuming, and can kind of continue to have discussions and communicate about it. Sorry.
Alex Wang (23:18) Can we just, why can’t we scope that now? We should know how many providers we have, how many emergency we have right now, right?
Kimwaters (23:25) I mean, there’s like, right? In the, in the latest list I had pulled and give or take, you know, 10, Alex, because there’s always new providers coming on board. There was like 236 providers and they’re, I’ll have to look at the most recent list, but 65 Ish, 70 locations. So, like each location would have, are you guys saying like, are you saying like facility enrollment as like, a group level enrollment almost or because… it’s right? Yeah, like how you’re using the terms, well, so.
Peter Bosworth (24:03) Not like a group.
Alex Wang (24:04) Level not.
Peter Bosworth (24:06) Just a group, not just enrolling your group with Aetna or something, but like a physical facility that needs enrollment at the facility level?
Alex Wang (24:15) Yeah, which, so.
Kimwaters (24:16) The, so each facility would have, an enrollment at a medicare and medicaid level, Alex, and then I’d have to go back and see if they’re doing if they’re having to do that specifically with the mcos and, the medicare advantage plans. But each provider is going to go to each payer. So like I don’t know how you guys, that was all done before I got here. So I’m assuming.
Alex Wang (24:47) Yeah, I guess, yeah, that’s my, Kim, that’s my confusion. So to, so I Peter, I guess what are we talking about? Are we talking about 250 going to 500? Or are we talking about 250 going to 700? Like we should know that today, right? Like what are we talking about here?
Peter Bosworth (25:04) Sorry, where, which, what numbers? I’m.
Alex Wang (25:06) just trying to, maybe I don’t know if you have a second slide here. I’m just trying to understand like if you’re saying we have a facility enrollment, like whatever the issue is, like what’s within our bucket versus outside of our bucket today. Like I’m just not tracking this facility enrollment’s implication here. Like like if Kim’s saying we have 250 providers and I like the rough math is every provider will have to do it twice. So we’re still at 500 and that’s below the 1,000 threshold. Like why is that an issue we’re discussing or versus like, you know, that’s well within limit? Or maybe this is just you all flagging like, you know, we’re using more credit. I’m just trying to understand like the… I guess like the math we’re trying to get to here. Yeah.
Genevieve Seney (25:54) It sounds like actually when you’re saying the math that you did include it in the payer enrollments. So we were just flagging it, but it sounds like, yeah, because you have, you purchased a 1,000. So it sounds like you did that with the intent that facilities would be included in that?
Alex Wang (26:10) I.
Kimwaters (26:10) I would have expected that. Yeah, I mean, we were, I would imagine that we would have, yeah, I think.
Genevieve Seney (26:17) That sounds right. I think we, again, we just want to flag this if like all of a sudden we see your PE enrollments like skyrocket because you didn’t include facility that’s why we’re basically just letting you know up front, but again, we’ll track this as we go if you need to. So you skew.
Kimwaters (26:31) flagged, my guess is my guess is they were probably considering it like, I know it’s not a group enrollment, but, it kind of feels like a group enrollment just depending on how you’re like looking at it. So maybe that’s the bucket we were thinking about it in. Although like group enrollments to your point are all the commercial side. That is your traditional like, yes, go enroll as a group. Like you don’t put anyone else, right? The facility enrollments is at the location level and, you know, Alex, I can, we can internally like do some math to see if like, no, but.
Alex Wang (27:11) I’m sorry, I think like once we submit the data medallion should be able to do this data for us, right? Yeah, pretty quickly like you already. Yeah.
Kimwaters (27:18) I mean, it was done when, I mean when the,
Alex Wang (27:20) proposal. So what’s the number? Are we talking 250 or are we talking 500? I just want to know the number.
Genevieve Seney (27:27) So, the reason that we wouldn’t have that is like these would be all net new enrollments, right? So, if you have 300 facilities and you’re planning to enroll them in a different payer next year, that would be 300 enrollments. You know what do you mean? So that’s like a projection?
Kimwaters (27:40) We’re not talking about. We’re not talking about current locations… like that’s, just going to get loaded. That’s part of the implementation fee. So like this is more how many new facilities, how many new locations Alex, are we expecting in the next year, right? I think it’s got it. Got it. Okay. For that reason. I feel like we’re more than safe. Yeah. Okay.
Alex Wang (28:04) Got it. Okay. That’s helpful. I had thought this is, we’re running against this threshold in implementation? No, yeah, no.
Kimwaters (28:12) That would have made a lot of money for sure. So really?
Alex Wang (28:16) What we’re talking about here is point one, the delegated roster issue and ongoing monitoring that’s kind of where?
Peter Bosworth (28:22) Yeah, in its simplest terms, yes. Yeah, okay.
Alex Wang (28:26) Got it. Okay.
Kimwaters (28:26) I think that’s making us feel a lot better because that definitely could have gotten a little scary on the enrollment side. So, so… I think what.
Peter Bosworth (28:36) we owe you is validation of these 14 roster templates and the fact that they’re indeed unique. And then it’s I’m.
Kimwaters (28:47) happy.
Peter Bosworth (28:47) To provide as much information as you want around this ongoing monitoring, we can include the slide, what comprehensive monitoring includes, show you the Andros file that was provided to us, our logic as to why you might need this comprehensive monitoring package. Yeah. And then happy to hear your thoughts on that.
Kimwaters (29:03) And don’t and you don’t have to overkill that just like what’s in the comprehensive package versus the ncqa because we didn’t know there was a difference. And then I guess maybe the three call outs that you mentioned, and then I can go back and find out, are we doing that because we just chose to or are we doing that? Because it’s a requirement of an agreement? And then we can.
Alex Wang (29:27) Come back and have.
Kimwaters (29:29) A discussion after that, okay? But also like just for our awareness, if you can let us know what the cost difference is in those two. I would still, I… would still fight, I would still fight really hard on that one. Sorry.
Alex Wang (29:47) Can I just say something so, Phil or sorry, Peter, the delegate roster, I just pulled up the contract. So we’re talking about 28,000 dollars to add 10 more rosters based on the price. We’re seeing… that is a lot just off the gate. And I don’t think so. This is kind of where I am when we had these conversations with josh and Nicole etc, we are under the impression like, you know, details aside. We’re under the impression this is a white glove service all inclusive. That’s why we’re assigning it. And if you, if we’re like two weeks into or three weeks, however many weeks into implementation, we’re saying we’re adding 10 percent cost to this, just on the point one before the ongoing monitoring. And just candidly, I don’t think that’s a very good start to the partnership. And I don’t think that sets the right tone for the partnership. And I’ll be like from the, you know, the.
Kimwaters (30:52) My seat.
Alex Wang (30:54) Again, I’m like pretty far removed from this… make me question if this partnership is worth going to and I will just send the contract to our charlesbank attorney and have the attorneys review the contract one more time to see if this partnership is worth going. That’s where I’m at and if.
Kimwaters (31:15) y’all,
Alex Wang (31:16) can come back with the answer, say we’re going to charge you 10 more percent two weeks into the implementation. I think we should have a serious conversation on if it’s worth going through the implementation.
Genevieve Seney (31:30) I hear you on that, Alex. I just want to jump in. Like I think from our perspective that’s not what we want to do. We don’t want to agreed. I want to start this partnership on the right foot. We’re in this for the long term. I think like from our perspective today, what we just wanted to do was validate, we have no intention of jumping in and charging you guys all this additional extra dollars we wanted to validate like, hey, is this correct? Do you truly need 14 different reports for your delegated support? Do you truly need ongoing monitoring? And then just taking that back to our teams because same with you, we have this handoff of, there are four reports. Great. And then we see 14 and obviously there’s a disconnect there. So I think like we want to align internally of what’s needed and then just go from there. But I get you, I hear you that’s not what I want to do and that’s not at all our intention.
Alex Wang (32:20) Yeah, I appreciate it. Yeah.
Kimwaters (32:22) Sorry.
Alex Wang (32:22) Kim, let me finish what I want to say is like, I think four or 14 or not our understanding when we talk through this with josh, Nicole, et cetera. Is we just have four delegated payers, however that works out. Maybe, you know, we honestly just trusted josh and Nicole in terms of scoping this out, that it just means we’re going to get the four delegated payers done. Like however the mechanism is, we kind of trusted them that this is going to get done or like, however the SKU, whatever it means, obviously, we wouldn’t know like you all definitely have the quote, unquote the proposal. We signed. It’s just one line delegated roster generation and says quantity four. So like if I were, you know, like in my seat, I would just take that at the face value meaning we’ll just get four delegated rosters done. And so this just feels like I don’t know we’re tripping up on verbiage or the mechanics in the behind here versus like what is the output we’re seeing? Yeah.
Genevieve Seney (33:25) I think, I hear you definitely. I think it’s good. It’s good feedback to truthfully our team to kind of navigate those conversations more strictly and more diving into how many reports do you have on a monthly basis? And it’s feedback that I’ve given as well just transparently so that we are aligned moving forward and agreed. We just want this set up correctly. We don’t want to, you know, make this sort of picking apart these conversations and discussions. So, yeah, I’m just, I’m glad we got aligned today.
Kimwaters (33:56) If there’s a true difference in like,
Alex Wang (33:58) a unique?
Kimwaters (34:00) Template versus like a run of a report that’s just a different conversation, right? So, I think just the clarity there and we do have intention to add delegated expand our delegated… lists that going in hopefully like starting Q3 where this is launched. This is live. The foundation’s there, we’ve got all the structure in place to be able to support expanding like delegation. So that is just so that you’re aware that’s something that we’re wanting to do. If that’s if that’s something that we need to talk about, how we.
Genevieve Seney (34:37) would leverage.
Kimwaters (34:38) SKUs, and where we’ve got bandwidth to do that. Knowing that the last half of the year we want to try to start expanding delegation efforts, that would be something I’d a conversation I’d like to like monitor and watch closely and better understand like, hey, if Alex, if we’re going to go get two additional delegated payers, this is what it’s going to. This is how it’s going to impact, you know, the agreement and we’re either pulling from SKUs, which is kind of the way it felt, in the sales discussion… it’d be nice to know even like, okay, if we, if we’re going to do add two, three, four additional delegated payers going into the fall, like do we have bandwidth within SKUs? Or is that going to be additional cost? And that’s something we may or may not know like immediately today, but something I want to make sure we stay really close on?
Alex Wang (35:31) Yeah.
Genevieve Seney (35:32) Yeah. And actually Peter, will be conducting monthly executive series with probably you too. I don’t know who else would join on your side and closely tracking your consumption and showing like where you are in the life cycle of your contract, how much dollars have you spent? Which products are you spending them on? And being collaborative with, your future anticipation needs? I’m so sorry team. I am six minutes over for the next meeting. We’ll wrap this up. I think like I don’t want there to be any sort of disconnect in our intentions, with the partnership. We are very excited to kick off anything. I think, we kind of understand where you guys are and we just want to make sure we have you set up like I mentioned. So we’ll get you those follow up items and I look forward to continuing the conversation.
Alex Wang (36:16) Thank you.
Peter Bosworth (36:16) Thank you guys. Great meeting you. Thanks, thanks, Kim.