Transcript
Jordan Tantleff (00:00) good night, Dave talk.
Dave Wallach (00:01) About good timing.
Jordan Tantleff (00:03) Seriously… hoping the WI fi stays good if not.
Dave Wallach (00:08) Yeah, I might self camera. I mean, I just, I… haven’t had a chance to fix my view yet.
Jordan Tantleff (00:17) There you go.
Dave Wallach (00:18) I’m gonna stay off now.
Jordan Tantleff (00:22) Yeah. I might end up off camera if the WI fi seems a little spotty.
Dave Wallach (00:27) What’s up, josh?
Jordan Tantleff (00:29) What are you doing? Josh?
Dave Wallach (00:34) What’s up guys? You’re home, right? I heard you didn’t make the trip.
Jordan Tantleff (00:39) Yeah. Been.
Joshua Levitan (00:40) Through a lot recently decided it was best to not… try to travel this week next week. I’m definitely going.
Jordan Tantleff (00:49) I’m gonna let Dawn in here.
Jordan Tantleff (00:58) Dawn. How’s it going?
Dawn Whipple (01:06) Going good. How are you doing?
Jordan Tantleff (01:08) Doing well. It’s nice to meet you. I.
Dawn Whipple (01:12) Would take off my camera, but for some reason, it doesn’t like zoom.
Jordan Tantleff (01:18) No worries. We’re actually the medallion side, we’re actually down in Austin for our quarterly business review. So, I’m taking this from a hotel. So if I start to buffer, I’m also gonna go off camera just to.
Dawn Whipple (01:28) Make sure no problem. Are.
Jordan Tantleff (01:33) you in the Dallas area somewhere?
Dawn Whipple (01:35) I’m not, I’m in Minnesota.
Jordan Tantleff (01:37) Oh, okay. Nice.
Dawn Whipple (01:42) Yeah. My team, we have Minnesota Kentucky and two in California.
Jordan Tantleff (01:47) Oh, nice and spread out.
Dave Wallach (01:50) Hey, Dawn. Nice to meet you. My name is Dave. Hi, Dave. I’m also off camera. I literally just checked into a hotel so I’ll do you all a favor and stay off camera for now.
Dawn Whipple (02:00) No worries.
Jordan Tantleff (02:04) Then we’re just waiting on cliff here.
Jordan Tantleff (02:16) Maybe while cliff’s joining, we can do some intros on our end because we haven’t met just yet, Dawn, but my name is Jordan. I’m one of the accounting executives on the partnerships team here at medallion. Been here for coming up on like two and a half years roughly. So really the main point of contact is you guys evaluate medallion as a potential partner and I’ll kick it over to josh to introduce himself here as well.
Joshua Levitan (02:42) Yeah. Nice to meet you. Dawn. I ride shotgun here along with Jordan, but a little bit more of a technical lens that I’ll bring to the table. So, getting into conversations about industry, product process, technology. All that good stuff is a little bit more of my forte. Sure.
Dawn Whipple (03:00) The fun stuff.
Dave Wallach (03:03) Yes. And that leaves me Dawn. My name is Dave. I’m from New Jersey and I lead one of our enterprise sales teams here that Jordan’s a part of. So happy to meet you. And I’ve had a couple conversations with cliff so far. So looking forward to the conversation.
Dawn Whipple (03:18) Sounds good.
Jordan Tantleff (03:23) We’ll give cliff some time here to hop on as well.
Dawn Whipple (03:47) I was going to say, let me text him real quick just in case.
Jordan Tantleff (03:50) Perfect. Appreciate that.
Dawn Whipple (04:17) Okay. Send him a text. We’ll hopefully either pop on or let me know one way or the other. I guess.
Jordan Tantleff (04:22) Sounds good. Start sharing my screen here. Make sure my WI fi doesn’t freak out about that.
Dawn Whipple (04:29) Perfect.
Dawn Whipple (04:46) So, is medallion basically a cbo or is it a software situation or I mean I might as well just ask some of these questions.
Jordan Tantleff (04:54) Yeah, yeah, totally fair. So we are an ncqa certified cbo. We also handle kind of these workflows end to end. So there’s the software that you and your team would be working out of. But then there’s also the services component of it. So we would handle, you know, enrollment applications to these payers, the follow up thereafter really with the goal of kind of alleviating kind of the manual processes that you guys are burdened with today. I know you guys are using mdstaff. So this is a bit of a, you know, flip of the kind of the current model that you guys are operating out of. And I know one thing that we, me and josh want to do following this call is obviously, you’re going to have a lot of, you know, more nuanced questions about the day to day with medallion. So we would love to set up a call really just a working session to outline kind of the, what we call, you know, you do versus we do responsibilities. So what you might be working out of versus what medallion might be responsible for? And then giving you a platform overview in that conversation as well as the next step if that works.
Dawn Whipple (05:54) Yeah. So just, he’s cliff’s on there he is.
Jordan Tantleff (06:01) How’s it going cliff?
Clifton Bazhaw (06:02) Sorry, guys. I got called, we got a new VP of finance starting this week. So I’m trying to teach him uvp one on one and as Don knows that’s not an easy discussion to have. So anyway, I apologize.
Jordan Tantleff (06:16) No, no worries. But Don, does that kind of help answer? I guess how to start for today? Yeah, sure. Okay, perfect. I appreciate you guys both taking the time here. You know, the goal for today is pretty simple, you know, walk through the initial business value assessment. We put together, you know, pressure test a few of the key assumptions together as well as just make sure this reflects how you actually run the business. And from there, we can tighten up anything that needs to be adjusted and land on a version that you guys feel confident taking internally both from a financial and operational standpoint. So we’ll keep this pretty focused on, you know, growth kind of revenue acceleration, EBITDA performance, and the operating model of, you know, mdstaff versus medallion.
Jordan Tantleff (07:02) And following this session, I’ll send over these slides and proposal for your internal review and in socialization. And then Dawn like I mentioned, will kind of silo that more technical conversation as well. That’s my plan today. I’m not sure if you guys had anything you also wanted to cover here, if that sounds good from your guys’ standpoint?
Joshua Levitan (07:23) Yeah. I mean, it works for me, Dawn? You? Cool?
Jordan Tantleff (07:25) With that.
Dawn Whipple (07:26) Yeah, yeah. Just basically high level. So I’m good with that. Sure. Perfect.
Jordan Tantleff (07:32) And the first few of these slides here, cliff, we’ve gone through these already. I just want to add them to the deck. So when I do send it over, so I won’t spend additional time here.
Jordan Tantleff (07:43) But again just anchoring, you know, on these outcomes of getting providers revenue generating faster, you know, reducing errors and a downstream revenue leakage, which isn’t a huge problem based on kind of the numbers that you guys shared for uvp today. And then just building that infrastructure as you scale to that 1,000,000,000 dollar revenue target. We went through this as well. So I’ll just make sure I send this over. And then this was what we touched on briefly in our last call, just a simple current state versus future state view showing what actually changes with medallion. So on the left being uvp’s current state and on the right medallion, the future state with medallion.
Jordan Tantleff (08:22) So today enrollment submissions take about two weeks with medallion. That drops to an average of five days and we contract to an SLA of 10 days. I know for the average turnaround time portion of here, we’ve kind of anchored to that 90 day turnaround time post submission to get into par with these payers with medallion, that would drop to an average of 56 days. I know we’ve spent some time here. So really want to start here because this is really the foundation for everything else from the back and forth conversations we’ve had we’ve aligned on 500,000,000 dollars as the near term milestone, which implies roughly adding about 40 providers annually. The reason this matters is everything downstream. So enrollment volume, staffing needs revenue ramp and ultimately EBITDA performance is all driven by how quickly these providers are onboarded coming into uvp’s network. So based on the current state of operations, there’s roughly one full time employee for every 39 providers, which would imply needing to hire one full time employee every year with 40 providers being onboarded annually. In reality, that workload might not be so linear. So I did put together the next slide which I’ll jump to shortly for us to review. But cliff, I know we’ve reviewed this Dawn. Any questions here? I guess first…
Dawn Whipple (09:45) Not really. I’m just kind of curious like, on your scalabilities, as far as the screen previous the five day application. My curiosity is, for example, I know this is more technical, right? So you cannot put in applications for many payers until medicare is approved or let’s say Minnesota, right? Minnesota requires Minnesota medicare, then Minnesota medicaid, and then you can submit two payers. How is that time to five or seven days? When I’m just curious so.
Joshua Levitan (10:25) What, what we’re tracking there is like from the time that you request an enrollment, or the time that an enrollment like physically can proceed until when it gets out the door, for the dependent enrollments, like what you’re describing what you would do is you would enter those all into medallion, and then we’re going to identify based on the rules in each specific state that they’re dependent. And then we’re going to pause the ones that are like the later ones in the dependency.
Dawn Whipple (10:52) Okay. So basically the same thing we do, okay, perfect. Thank you.
Joshua Levitan (10:56) But when it comes time to the next one in order, right? That means like from the second that it can start from the second that there’s a response on the first one in the chain, we will have the second one out the door.
Dawn Whipple (11:08) Yeah, yeah. Yeah. That’s what we do as well, thanks.
Jordan Tantleff (11:16) And before I walk through this, I want to level set on what this is and what this isn’t so this is definitely not me telling you how Dawn, how your team operates today, but this is kind of a more bottom up model based on industry benchmarks and what we see across similar clients and prospects. The way we built. This is pretty straightforward. We broke down the core work streams that your team owns today from provider onboarding, enrollments, licensing, et cetera. And then applied time per task assumptions based on medallion’s expertise and what we see across our customers. So, for example, we typically see onboarding takes about three hours per provider. Enrollments take about nine hour per enrollment, three hours per revalidation, and so forth. Again directional benchmarks, and not absolutes. But when you apply those assumptions to uvp’s current and projected volumes, you end up with roughly seven point seven full time employees worth of work annually, or about 500,500 dollars in opex, which actually would be about 525,000 dollars in opex. If you include the current cost of MD-Staff, which is around 24,000 dollars annually. This is really the you know, if nothing changes model meaning continuing to scale on MD-Staff as well as with an internal team. On the flip side when we apply automation and managed services with medallion owning execution, that same volume of work drops to needing about one point three full time employees or about 85,000 dollars in opex.
Jordan Tantleff (12:57) The takeaway here isn’t you need to go hire four more people tomorrow, but rather a visual as you scale to 40 providers per year, this workload scales pretty quickly along with it. At some point the team becomes a bottleneck or you’re forced to keep adding headcount to meet that scope of work. The reason I want to include this view is just because this isn’t just a cost conversation. It’s really about the predictability of your operating model as you scale. Do you want variable headcount or kind of fixed infrastructure that scales along with you? I’ll pause here. If there’s any commentary or questions on how we kind of arrived to these numbers. Just want to directionally level set on the conversation here.
Dawn Whipple (13:41) Sure. I do have a question like for example, caqh management, no full time employees. How is it completed then?
Joshua Levitan (13:49) We’re using, we can get to this down when we sidebar and talk in more detail. We showed this to cliff a little bit. We’re using automation to do that. So ingesting from caqh, we have direct API connection and then updating caqh like pushing backwards into caqh. And it tests into that. We have a bot based automation that we’ve built out that runs that process automatically on set intervals.
Dawn Whipple (14:14) Okay. So… one of the things just high level, again, one of the things that we run into occasionally is providers go in and change things and don’t tell us how does your software catch that and make those corrections?
Joshua Levitan (14:32) Yeah. So we would want to start with a little bit of education that like medallion becomes the source of truth for all things going forward. So like simple example, but you get married, you change your name, you make that change in medallion, and providers have access to a medallion portal for as long as they’re employed with you, where they can go in, you can also make the change, but where they can go in and edit data.
Joshua Levitan (14:54) So we want to set that expectation. Now, if they do make a change, what we’re going to do is the updating of caqh. We do on two sort of situations. Number one would be when their quarterly attestation is due. So when the quarterly attestation is due, we make sure actually 30 days before that we attest for them. And then make sure that all of the information in medallion is pushed into caqh. We also do that same process off cycle, right? Before we submit an enrollment application. So if you said go and get Jordan enrolled in Aetna Minnesota, before we submit that application to Aetna. Minnesota, our bot is going to make sure that caqh matches what’s in medallion?
Dawn Whipple (15:35) Right. And does it also do the same for availity? Yes. Okay. Because another quick question, first of the year, availity had about a 1,000 errors that we had to go in and fix each individual error because they lost a ton of our information, medallion would be able to just kind.
Joshua Levitan (15:56) Of clear those errors. Let’s define that a little bit more. Are you talking about availity when you’re submitting an application? Are you talking about availity as a clearinghouse for claims? Yes?
Dawn Whipple (16:07) I’m speaking of availity as the data management for many of our payers use availity, right?
Joshua Levitan (16:17) Okay. So that would be more in the case of like a revalidation, there were errors you were trying to revalidate your providers.
Dawn Whipple (16:22) And there were errors. So availity requires you to go in quarterly as well, just like caqh. Oh, okay. Which, and so I just didn’t see it on your list. So that’s what I was wondering. Yeah, if you also have a bot to handle that workload as well?
Joshua Levitan (16:38) Yeah. So that’s more in line with like the payer enrollment piece, at least the way we think of it than caqh management. Again, this might be semantics but at least the way we break it up, but yes, like that, we are automating the.
Dawn Whipple (16:52) When.
Joshua Levitan (16:52) payers use availability portals for like all things enrollment, we are automating the interaction with those portals. This might warrant a little bit more detail. And again, a side conversation in the future. Sure. But yes, absolutely. I was.
Dawn Whipple (17:06) Just curious if it was concluded kind of in the management piece or enrollment. Yeah. So it’s more enrollment. Okay, cool. Thanks. Yep.
Jordan Tantleff (17:16) There aren’t any other questions here. We’ll go into more of the financial modeling. And today we’re modeling is again, the current average turnaround time to par for uvp being around 90 days with medallion, that average turnaround time to par comes down to about 56 days. So effectively that’s 34 additional billable days per provider. When you apply that across, you know, 40 providers being onboarded per year, each generating 8,173 dollars in revenue per day, you get to about 11 point 1,000,000 in accelerated revenue annually. Another way to think about is that each day that goes by that actually equates to about 326,920 dollars in delayed revenue per day. One other call out. I’ll kind of bring about here. Is that medallion can help support uvp when it becomes the appropriate time, and getting those delegated agreements in place with payers with those established medallion becomes, you know, acting more as the ncqa certified cvo that turnaround time for us to, you know, provide an ncqa compliant cred file drops to about zero point eight days in average with medallion contracting to three day turnaround times, that would actually translate to 87 more billable days using medallion. And if this was the case that all these providers were in a delegated arrangement with payers, that would accelerate about 28,000,000 dollars in revenue annually. But again, anchoring in the kind of pre delegation agreement phase for this conversation cliff, I know we’ve kind of reviewed this on a different level of volumes here. But any questions here before I continue?
Joshua Levitan (19:03) No, not on.
Jordan Tantleff (19:04) My side.
Dawn Whipple (19:06) My only question is what if it doesn’t happen? So what if you don’t do 56 days to par status? Are you talking with all of the payers? Like even the stupid ones that take forever? What kind of a guarantee, Ish, kind of thing do we have that, that’s going to? Can we get out of the contract if it doesn’t work? What kind of a situation is that? Because that’s a, I love the number. I mean 56 days for 50 payers, I’m all over that. But if it’s not right, I just want to know what our options are.
Jordan Tantleff (19:49) Absolutely. Yeah. So 56 days I’ll start, josh, if you want to hop in, certainly can 56 days is the average turnaround time we’re seeing across all payers in all markets that we currently handle payer enrollment, work workload with. Today. When it comes to contractual guarantees, we’re still contracting just to the turnaround time on submissions out the door. And if there’s an exercise that we want to go through when we actually kind of audit against your payer list that we’re talking about and compare turnaround times, we can certainly take that step. We just use the averages for today’s, conversation. And josh, not sure if you want to add anything. Yeah.
Joshua Levitan (20:27) I was just going to say this is typically something we’ll do, right? Don, is we’ll ask you for a list of payers and we’ll make that number very specific from our database that’s right? 56 is across all of the 1,100 payers we’ve worked with across the country. Okay, there will be ones that are longer than that, right? But what I think you should definitely expect is your current long ones are, might still be longer than the average, but they’re going to be shorter than what they are now, right? So if it’s a blue or something that takes you, I don’t know 120 days right now and your average is 90, like we can’t guarantee 56 days for every single payer, but we look at averages as the best mathematical way to improve that right now.
Joshua Levitan (21:04) And there’s still going to be some variability but even on your long tails, you will still see improvement as well as on your short tails, you’ll see improvement. There’ll be improvement across the board.
Jordan Tantleff (21:15) Sure. Perfect. And that can certainly be an exercise that we take in a further conversation today or down the road as well. But one thing I want to do kind of building on top of that, you know, 11,000,000 dollars in accelerated revenue. What I’ve done here is take a conservative view on margin using 20 percent EBITDA at that margin, that translates to roughly two point 2,000,000 dollars in incremental EBITDA annually. And when you carry that forward from a valuation standpoint, you know, based on my research, similar businesses to uvp with a typical 10 to 12 X multiple, that translates to about 22,000,000 to 27,000,000 dollars in enterprise value creation cliff. I know a lot of this evaluation.
Jordan Tantleff (22:04) You mentioned wanting to scale without adding headcount and making sure providers ramp quickly once hired. This is the ultimate financial impact of solving that. So even under conservative assumptions on EBITDA margin and multiples, speed to par translates into greater than 20,000,000 dollars in enterprise value, curious from your perspective, if this kind of aligns with how you’re thinking about socializing or presenting this internally cliff?
Clifton Bazhaw (22:35) Yeah. Like we talked about and Don obviously had this discussion, I mean, you know, some of this can’t you know, eliminate flow providers, getting us the data to begin with, right? To even start the process or, you know, nuances, like, you know, their state license is an issue or something like that, right? So taking that out of it of the equation, and because that’s not anything we can all control at least in some cases. Yeah, I mean, it’s more along the lines of how, you know, this direction we’re going to head in like, you know, how I’ve got to present it, you know, to the powers to be in the board. So, but yeah, yeah, I think in going back to Don’s previous question about particular payers, there are particularly in an empire and a couple of like we’ve talked about on previous calls a little bit more difficult regions from a payer perspective. Yeah, it’d be interesting and Don’s going to know who those are. I even know some of them because we’ve had to deal with it, you know, the top, you know… lead times, it would be good to take those. And you guys tell us in your experience of hopefully dealing with those payers, what we can reduce that timeframe to. I think that’s important as we look at this. But yeah, directionally, this makes sense.
Jordan Tantleff (24:04) Yeah, perfect. And absolutely, I think that’d be a nice follow up in one of our next calls. Dawn. If we could pull together, you know, those annoying payers, get an idea of what those average turnaround times would be. Certainly compare that against what medallion could condense those timelines to. That could be a nice next step. And just make sure we’re dotting all our I’s as we do this evaluation here.
Dawn Whipple (24:26) That’d be great… there, aren’t.
Jordan Tantleff (24:31) further questions here. This is more so like the other side of the equation. So if nothing changes operationally to support that same growth, you’re looking at increasing your headcount to potentially six, seven full time employees in the near term and beyond that as you scale, which drives, you know, opex, you know, more variability and more dependency on hiring and training. What we typically see is, you know, growth looks clean on paper, but operationally, these processes start to bottleneck and opex grows in a way that’s hard to forecast. The whole purpose of medallion is to flip that model to a more, you know, fixed predictable infrastructure, keeping that internal headcount closer to one full time employee and keeping that ability to scale without constantly adding people to the equation. So going more so into price here. So from there, what we’ve done is translate, you know, the provider growth assumptions of 40 providers added annually, the payer mix of about 28 payers per provider and the workflows your team owns today into a subscription model that aligns to that volume with that context. Here’s, how pricing is structured for the partnership. There’s two components. First is a one time implementation fee of 35,000 dollars, which covers onboarding, training, data, migration integrations. Second would be the average annual service costs of those workflows that we discussed, which would be close to 466,000 dollars. That includes the end to end support aligned to the scope of work and usage. We’ve worked on quantifying… before going into the proposal on pricing. I want to just quickly review the math on how we kind of arrived at each of these volumes in the proposal. So you’ll see medallion core which is essentially the provider seat in the platform today. Uvp has, there was 158 employed employees, 139 employees that are not employed by uvp but are performing procedures at uvp owned facilities. So there’s about 297 current providers today, plus the 40 onboarded providers annually, which is how we got to that 337 number there Dawn. I imagine your team’s doing caqh management just for the employed provider network. So it’d be 158 employed with the 40 onboarded providers to get to that caqh management volume. And then in regards to enrollments, revalidations, those volumes are based on the 28, about average 28 health plans per provider that each provider would be in network with. I imagine you have a more concrete number on revalidations if we want to work through what that would look like. We can certainly adjust as well when it comes to the cred files to meet joint commission standards. So your providers are seeing patients at sites that require those admitting privileges that’s about 139 files per year. Is what we came to. Again, happy to adjust based on what, you know, real numbers we might be looking at that are in scope here. But any questions I guess on the math before I kind of dive into the pricing here?
Joshua Levitan (27:42) Don, I would assume you’re operating to aaahc standards, we left this?
Dawn Whipple (27:47) As, yeah, we have joint commission aaahc quad a, and.
Jordan Tantleff (27:54) Yeah. And that’s it. So.
Joshua Levitan (27:55) We loop all of those like on the way that like the order forms and the official paperwork, all of those are just looped into the tjc bucket just so you know, but we meet all those standards. We just call it this to stay consistent with like what you’ll see on a quote, just a weird internal thing. Sure.
Jordan Tantleff (28:17) And here’s a more full breakdown of the services. So again, this includes the expected volumes and that math that was on the previous slide. The list pricing as well as discounted pricing and totals for each line item. Year one includes the 35,000 dollar implementation fee which drops off in years two and three. On the subsequent slides or the next slides. All pricing shown here is contingent on finalizing a partnership by the end of June. I know there’s a lot of numbers here that I’m throwing at you. But is there anything I can clarify on this?
Clifton Bazhaw (28:57) Looking through it real quick and.
Dave Wallach (29:00) Cliff while you’re off mute, we’d just love your, just to do a gut check with you on kind of your expectations versus the, you know, proposal. And if this is aligned or on different planets, but love your feedback. Okay?
Clifton Bazhaw (29:19) Yeah, I’m just looking through it.
Clifton Bazhaw (29:28) Okay. And it’s a three year term?
Jordan Tantleff (29:37) Correct. So, this is, this would be year one. I broke down year two and year three as well for your review. When I send this over. And really the only volumes you’ll see changing across years two and three is the additional 40 providers accounted for in the medallion core.
Jordan Tantleff (29:56) So the seat in the platform as well as the additional 40 providers for the caqh management component… got it. Okay.
Jordan Tantleff (30:09) I guess, is end of June a realistic target. If we’re looking to, you know, potentially finalize a partnership from your side. I know there’s conversations that need to happen internally, but like just get an understanding of that as well.
Clifton Bazhaw (30:22) Yeah. I mean that’s maybe directionally somewhere in the neighborhood. I just, I, you know, again it’s kind of Dawn’s first like view. So I’d like to obviously take a little offline and have a conversation with her about timing and that type of thing. But that’s I mean that’s a good flag to put in the ground. So.
Jordan Tantleff (30:40) Yeah, absolutely. And, and I also went ahead and put together, I mapped out a mutual action plan that pretty much outlines the typical steps that we see needed to be taken, to reach a potential partnership with kind of the internal review of this deck and proposal being an immediate next step. Dawn again, would love to get some time on you to kind of outline the you do versus we do responsibilities and do more of a deep dive demo of the platform to just make sure we’re you know, addressing any more, you know, the more nuanced questions that you obviously will have also want to call out again, you know, we would love to get on site to align on this partnership and build cross functional alignment with leadership and core stakeholders as necessary. I know we’re a minute over time here. So I guess my question to wrap this up would be, I guess cliff and Dawn, do you guys feel like this is a good starting point to have what you need to start kind of socializing this internally?
Clifton Bazhaw (31:39) Yeah. I think from my perspective, this is a good start. And then like I said, Dawn and I can kind of reconvene and then pull in additional folks, you know, that have to give their okay on it. And then, yeah, but I think this is directly again kind of in the right direction and gets us moving there anyway. So, yeah, perfect.
Jordan Tantleff (32:02) Perfect. So what I’ll do is I’ll follow up this meeting with an email, just high level, you know, recap of this conversation along with this deck, Dawn, we can set up some time async over email and align on, you know, date and time for us to do more of that deep dive conversation on these processes and workflows and just make sure we’re answering all the questions you have from an operational standpoint, aligning with those expectations that’d be great.
Clifton Bazhaw (32:30) Yeah, I think that’s a good next step, get the deck over and then, you know, again just kind of like obviously a high, you know, kind of a high overview like Dawn to kind of get more into the details and just talk about like when the timing works, whether this product and everything covers us from end to end because I know what I know, but I’m smart enough to know there’s a lot of things I don’t know because, you know, obviously I’m not living in this world every single day and Dawn is. So I want her to kind of review, you know, from an operational perspective, the viability and just make sure we’re all aligned from that perspective.
Jordan Tantleff (33:16) Yeah, absolutely. And Dawn, we’ll probably block off an hour or so for that conversation if for some reason we need, you know, more time. We can certainly do so. But definitely want to make sure that you’re comfortable from a technical and, you know, operational standpoint, moving this thing forward cliff.
Dave Wallach (33:32) I have one quick question for you before we drop and, you know, thinking about the entire initiative overall and, you know, the growth goals, the challenges, you have, right? Everything that Jordan has outlined over the past 30 minutes or so. The way that uvp typically makes investments with partnerships like this. If you were to present this to the board and the rest of your C level peers, does this seem directionally correct to you so far? Just as the first iteration, in terms of, you know, presenting something like this to solve a problem that you’re looking to solve for?
Clifton Bazhaw (34:06) Yeah, I think that, you know, in a lot of different ways and different departments we’re looking to obviously automate more utilize technology that’s currently available. And, you know, what does that mean as far as enterprise value to uvp? And then, you know, obviously we got to weigh other priorities, right? So, and, you know, just enterprise wide spend and where we’re at from that perspective and make sure this falls in. It is one of the priorities obviously because the quicker we can get providers up and running, obviously, the more productive they can be, which means more revenue for us. So, and obviously this inherently has its guardrails at times. So the more we can, you know, reduce that timeframe the better. So yeah, I think that, you know, again like I said, it’s definitely a priority but that being said, there’s other priorities with the organization too. So we want to make sure it fits at least what we’re wanting to do today and make sure we’re moving into that direction. But directionally this is, you know, what they’d want to see, right? So what’s going to change? What are we spending today? What will we be spending tomorrow? What eventually does that mean as far as additional revenue into the organization? And what type of enterprise value does this bring? Short and long term? So I think we’ve covered the majority of those here. And as long as, you know, we feel that, you know, that this is something that we can, you know, operationalize… easy as possible and get up and running so we can take advantage obviously of those new revenue opportunities. Then that’s great. So, yeah. So I think like the data looks good. I think it’s exactly what they’d want to see. Now, they’d want to know from myself and Don and others how operationally does it make sense? And is this truly achievable to get there? That’s going to be the question.
Clifton Bazhaw (36:21) So we just got to make sure that we all feel comfortable that we can hit this because without, you know, execution then they’re just numbers, right? So that’s it.
Jordan Tantleff (36:34) Absolutely… Dave. I’m not sure if there’s anything else you want to add here? No.
Dave Wallach (36:40) I appreciate the insight cliff very much. Yeah, appreciate that. Perfect.
Jordan Tantleff (36:45) Well, cliff and Don really appreciate your time. I know we went a bit over here, so I appreciate being a little flexible here. I’ll follow up by email with these slides and the recap like I mentioned, and Don will get some time on the calendar for that conversation as well. But again, thank you for the time and looking forward to continuing conversations. Perfect.
Clifton Bazhaw (37:04) Thank you so much. Thanks guys. Yeah, looking forward to the deck and certainly appreciate you guys putting this together and let’s see what we can do to move forward.
Dave Wallach (37:11) Cliff. Yeah, I know we talked about it. I know Jordan mentioned you think getting together early may with the rest of the leadership team would make sense?
Clifton Bazhaw (37:19) Sure. Yeah, yeah. Now, it’s going to, it’s going to be a little difficult right now because we’re kind of in transition. We’ve been in downtown at the corporate office there since I started. I think we got that space in 2017. So we’ve been there for a while and we, our lease was coming up at the end of this year. So we have already subleased it and the folks that are taking needed it in like 30 days. So literally today is my last day in the office. And then we won’t have really a corporate office for a couple months. So all the corporate people are going to be working remotely until probably July first.
Clifton Bazhaw (38:01) So getting everybody in a room to meet may be difficult, but that being said, there’s nothing wrong with, you know, all of us getting together, you know, in person somewhere maybe lunch or something like.
Dave Wallach (38:12) that, yeah, lunch dinner, we can figure something out as long as the interest is there. So awesome.
Clifton Bazhaw (38:17) Absolutely. Yep. Makes sense.
Dave Wallach (38:22) I’m all set Jordan. Thank you.
Jordan Tantleff (38:24) Sounds good. Have another great rest of your day all.
Clifton Bazhaw (38:27) Right, guys. Thank you. Take care. Appreciate it.