sttil/Signal
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
Signal/CGM-Denial-Prevention/01-Claude-Outputs/Analysis/signal-cgm-segment-scoring-v1.md
Kisa 346a1fb58e feat: Signal CGM strategic analysis + asset sale package 
Adds complete go-to-market analysis for Signal CGM asset sale:

Analysis/
  - signal-cgm-segment-scoring-v1.md   (3-model scoring across 7 segments)
  - signal-cgm-re-scored-composite-v2.md (50/30/20 composite, MA+Medicaid scope)
  - signal-cgm-final-ranking-leverage-v3.md (final 4-segment rank + leverage map)

Assets/
  - signal-cgm-pitch-v1-plain.md       (plain language leave-behind)
  - signal-cgm-pitch-v2-professional.md (professional leave-behind)
  - master-summary.md                   (rankings, metrics, next-steps prompt)

Key findings: 25.2% CGM improper payment rate; 20% net revenue loss;
63% of denied claims permanently written off; billing company #1 target
for pilot; NikoHealth #1 for asset sale.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-19 20:37:18 -04:00

7.8 KiB
Raw Blame History

Signal CGM — Segment Scoring Model v1

Explicit Criteria, Weights, and Rankings Across Three Objectives

STTIL Solutions LLC | April 2026

Scoring Architecture

Three independent rankings. Each uses different criteria, weights, and success definitions. A segment that ranks #1 for SaaS ICP may be wrong for a pilot and irrelevant for an asset sale. Treat them as separate decisions.

Model 1: Best SaaS ICP for MRR/ARR

Criterion Weight What it measures
Pain intensity 25% How acutely the segment feels the CGM denial problem
Willingness / ability to pay 20% Named budget, ROI clarity, buyer who can sign
Revenue per customer (ARR × LTV) 20% Monthly contract × expected contract duration
Sales cycle speed 15% Weeks from first contact to signed contract
Churn durability 10% Still exists and values the tool in 24 months?
Reachability at scale 10% Find and reach efficiently without large sales org

SaaS ICP Scores

Segment Pain (25%) Pay (20%) ARR×LTV (20%) Cycle (15%) Churn (10%) Reach (10%) Score
Mid-size supplier (10–50 emp) 9 8 8 7 6 7 7.80
Billing company / DME RCM 8 7 7 5 8 6 6.95
Small supplier (2–8 emp) 10 5 4 6 4 8 6.40
VGM Group / MSO 5 4 7 3 9 5 5.30
DME platform vendor (NikoHealth) 3 4 8 2 9 3 4.65
State / national association 2 1 1 3 7 9 2.55
Grant-funded / QI org 3 2 2 2 4 4 2.60

Key rationale:

  • Mid-size supplier leads because they have pain + budget + ROI clarity at $199–$399/month
  • Small supplier has maximum pain (10/10) but minimum reliability — high churn risk as CB 2028 approaches
  • Billing company scores #2: absorbs denial labor directly; LTV longer than any individual supplier
  • NikoHealth scores low on SaaS — they are an asset buyer, not a subscriber

Model 2: Best Buyer for Asset Sale / Strategic Handoff

Criterion Weight What it measures
Distribution reach 30% How many suppliers does this buyer already reach?
Strategic need 25% Documented feature gap; would they build it otherwise?
Price ceiling 20% How much would a motivated buyer plausibly pay?
Speed to close 15% Weeks from conversation to signed term sheet
Build vs. buy calculus 10% Is acquiring faster than building given CB 2028 window?

Asset Sale Scores

Segment Distribution (30%) Need (25%) Price (20%) Speed (15%) B/B (10%) Score
DME platform vendor (NikoHealth) 10 9 9 3 7 8.20
VGM Group / MSO 10 7 7 4 8 7.55
Billing company / DME RCM 7 8 6 5 7 6.75
State / national association 8 4 2 2 3 4.40
Mid-size supplier 1 5 2 4 3 2.85
Small supplier 1 4 1 3 2 2.10
Grant-funded / QI org 3 3 2 1 2 2.40

NikoHealth (#1 asset buyer) rationale:

  • Already serves the exact buyer profile; CGM feature gap is documented and real
  • API-first architecture makes integration technically trivial
  • CB 2028 window makes buying faster than 6–9 month internal build
  • Price ceiling is 3–5× current $25K–$60K ask for a motivated platform buyer

Model 3: Best Pilot Validation Partner

Criterion Weight What it measures
Data accessibility 25% Structured CGM billing data with denial reason codes
Cooperation likelihood 20% Will they actively participate and give feedback?
Signal quality 20% Will pilot results generalize to target market?
PHI / compliance overhead 20% BAA and data security burden
Feedback loop speed 15% How quickly is denial rate change measurable?

Pilot Scores

Segment Data (25%) Coop (20%) Signal (20%) PHI (20%) Speed (15%) Score
Billing company / DME RCM 10 7 10 6 6 8.00
Mid-size supplier 8 8 9 5 8 7.60
DME platform vendor 10 4 10 7 4 7.30
Small supplier 6 9 7 5 7 6.75
VGM / MSO 3 5 4 4 3 3.80

Billing company leads pilot scoring because they have multi-supplier, multi-plan, multi-jurisdiction billing data — the fastest path to H1 validation (denials are documentation-fixable) across a meaningful sample size.

Government Enforcement Context

Finding Source Strategic Implication
CGM improper payment rate: 25.2% / $278.5M/yr CMS 2024 One in four CGM dollars improperly paid
94.2% from documentation failures CMS 2024 Not fraud — fixable workflow gaps
$1.9B total DMEPOS improper payments FY2024 OIG CGM is highest-scrutiny category
$1.8B in payments suspended 2025 CMS Fraud Defense Ops Enforcement is executing at scale now
CGM as explicit 2026 enforcement priority OIG / DOJ Legitimate suppliers get caught in sweeps
Unequal enforcement: pharmacy vs DMEPOS CMS-2025-0242-0025 DMEPOS held to higher standard than pharmacy for same product

The dual-edge positioning: Signal CGM's audit log is not just a billing tool — it is liability documentation. A supplier who can show time-stamped pre-submission checks has a defensibility argument when the MAC issues an ADR.

NikoHealth Foothold Assessment

Verdict: Credible and growing challenger. Not the market standard.

Indicator Assessment
Architecture Cloud-native, API-first — genuine advantage over Brightree
Pricing More accessible for small suppliers than Brightree ($600–$1,500+/mo)
Market position Capturing switchers from legacy platforms; not dominant
Customer count G2 review volume suggests low hundreds, not thousands
CGM-specific intelligence Generic authorization alerts; no 6-month visit tracking, no MAC-jurisdiction rules, no 45-day runway logic
Competitive risk Could close the CGM gap in 6–9 months of focused engineering

Asset sale timing window: open but not permanent. NikoHealth's API-first architecture makes acquisition or licensing integration technically trivial relative to Brightree's legacy stack.

Sources