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>
192 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
192 lines
11 KiB
Markdown
# Signal CGM — Asset Sale Overview
|
||
## Professional Edition
|
||
### Strategic Acquisition for DME-Focused Revenue Cycle Management Organizations
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
> SIGNAL CGM
|
||
> A CGM-Specific Denial Prevention and Compliance Intelligence Platform
|
||
> for DME Revenue Cycle Management Organizations
|
||
>
|
||
> Asset Acquisition and Licensing Opportunity | April 2026
|
||
> STTIL Solutions LLC | kisasttil@gmail.com
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### The Problem Your Clients Cannot Solve Alone
|
||
|
||
CMS's 2024 Medicare Fee-for-Service data puts the CGM improper payment rate at
|
||
**25.2% — $278.5 million in projected annual overpayments** on glucose monitor
|
||
billing. Of that figure, 94.2% traces directly to documentation deficiencies:
|
||
missing or expired Certificates of Medical Necessity, prior authorizations not
|
||
obtained before shipment, undocumented 6-month physician visits, and prescriber
|
||
PECOS enrollment failures. Less than 6% reflects medical necessity disputes or
|
||
coverage policy conflicts.
|
||
|
||
The financial consequence for a supplier billing 500 active CGM patients monthly
|
||
runs deeper than the denial rate suggests. After accounting for appeal labor,
|
||
write-off timing, and the hard limits of the five-level Medicare appeals process,
|
||
**approximately 63% of denied CGM claim value is permanently absorbed** — not
|
||
recovered through redetermination or QIC reconsideration. The net effect on a
|
||
$125,000/month CGM billing book: a structural revenue loss of roughly $25,000
|
||
per month, or **20% of gross CGM billing**, that does not appear as a line item
|
||
in any supplier's P&L but is reflected across AR aging, appeal staffing overhead,
|
||
and uncompensated product cost.
|
||
|
||
This is the problem Signal CGM was built to eliminate — not by improving the
|
||
appeals process, but by making the appeals process unnecessary.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Six Workflow Leverage Points, in Priority Order
|
||
|
||
**1. Prior Authorization Tracking (Highest Leverage — No Recovery Path if Missed)**
|
||
PA not obtained before CGM shipment is the only denial type with zero appeal
|
||
recovery. Signal CGM initiates PA tracking 45 days before the projected refill
|
||
date — sufficient runway for the MAC's 14–21 day adjudication window plus a
|
||
resubmission buffer — and blocks order release until PA is confirmed in the
|
||
system. The April 13, 2026 expansion of the Required Prior Authorization list
|
||
and ongoing MA plan-specific requirements (UHC non-T1D since September 2024)
|
||
are automatically reflected in the current HCPCS code tracking layer.
|
||
|
||
**2. Refill Tracking / Coverage Clock (Enabling Architecture)**
|
||
A predictive refill calendar keyed to each patient's last dispense date, device
|
||
type, and payer-specific wear-day rules generates the operational foundation for
|
||
every other intervention point. Without forward visibility into the refill
|
||
schedule, PA initiation, CMN flagging, and visit compliance checks are reactive
|
||
lookups rather than automated workflow triggers.
|
||
|
||
**3. 6-Month Physician Visit Compliance (Highest Frequency Preventable Denial)**
|
||
Medicare's continued CGM coverage requirement mandates a documented in-person
|
||
or telehealth visit with the treating practitioner every six months. In a mature
|
||
500-patient book, 8–15 patients per month are approaching or past this window.
|
||
Unlike PA failures, missed-visit denials carry a 50–65% QIC overturn rate when
|
||
documentation can be obtained retroactively — but preventing the denial is worth
|
||
more than recovering half of it post-filing. Signal CGM surfaces each patient's
|
||
visit window as a prioritized outreach task 30+ days before the refill date.
|
||
|
||
**4. Prescriber PECOS Validation at Each Refill Cycle (Hard Write-Off Prevention)**
|
||
Medicare requires that the ordering physician maintain active enrollment at the
|
||
time each order is placed — not merely at the time of initial patient intake.
|
||
No incumbent DME billing platform currently re-validates prescriber enrollment
|
||
status at the refill cycle level. Signal CGM queries the NPPES registry against
|
||
the ordering provider's NPI at each scheduled refill and routes any inactive or
|
||
mismatched NPI to a supplier alert queue before the order can release.
|
||
|
||
**5. Intake Validation (Pipeline Defense)**
|
||
At new patient intake, Signal CGM performs eligibility verification, duplicate
|
||
claim history check, base equipment record validation (M124), and initial
|
||
prescriber PECOS status check before any first order is authorized.
|
||
|
||
**6. Audit Defense Log (Compliance Record as System Byproduct)**
|
||
Every pre-submission check generates a time-stamped audit log entry documenting
|
||
what was verified and when. In the current enforcement environment — with $1.9B
|
||
in DMEPOS improper payments under active OIG scrutiny, CGM explicitly identified
|
||
as a 2026 nationwide enforcement priority, and $1.8B in payments suspended by
|
||
CMS's Fraud Defense Operations Center in 2025 — a defensible compliance record
|
||
distinguishes a legitimate supplier from an audit target when the MAC issues an ADR.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### The Pilot Offer: 60-Day Proof of Concept on Live Client Data
|
||
|
||
We are offering a structured 60-day pilot at no cost or obligation.
|
||
|
||
Select two to three CGM-active clients from your book. Signal CGM runs against
|
||
their live billing data — tracking open refills, flagging PA status gaps, CMN
|
||
expirations, and visit compliance windows across their active CGM patient roster.
|
||
At day 30 and day 60, we deliver a denial risk exposure report: claims that would
|
||
have shipped without documentation in hand, segmented by denial type and estimated
|
||
dollar exposure.
|
||
|
||
The pilot does not require replacing or integrating with existing billing software.
|
||
Signal CGM operates as a parallel layer over whatever clearinghouse or platform
|
||
the client currently uses. PHI handling during the pilot is governed by a Business
|
||
Associate Agreement executed before data access begins.
|
||
|
||
At the conclusion of 60 days, you hold a documented, client-specific before-and-after
|
||
comparison. That evidence either supports a deployment decision or it does not.
|
||
There is no obligation if the results do not meet your threshold.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### The Ask
|
||
|
||
**Option 1 — Full Asset Acquisition**
|
||
One-time acquisition: **$45,000–$65,000**
|
||
|
||
Includes: full Python/FastAPI source code, coverage calculator, audit logger,
|
||
PostgreSQL data models, payer rules configuration, complete research library
|
||
(market research, compliance roadmap, BAA framework), 30-day live knowledge
|
||
transfer with the STTIL Solutions founder, and the CLAUDE.md AI development
|
||
context enabling immediate continuation of development with Claude Code at
|
||
zero ramp-up cost. No licensing fees, no royalties, no ongoing STTIL involvement
|
||
unless contracted separately.
|
||
|
||
Buyer white-labels the product, deploys across their client base, and captures
|
||
the full downstream revenue.
|
||
|
||
**Option 2 — Per-Seat Licensing**
|
||
**$75 per supplier client per month** (volume negotiable above 25 seats)
|
||
|
||
Includes ongoing payer rule updates, Required PA code list maintenance, and
|
||
access to product improvements. A 20-client deployment at $75/month represents
|
||
$1,500/month in licensing cost against a conservative $9,000–$18,000/month in
|
||
recovered denial revenue across those clients — before accounting for staff
|
||
labor savings on appeal management.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Three Objections Addressed Directly
|
||
|
||
**"The cost isn't justified at our current scale."**
|
||
The financial threshold for ROI is low. A single client with 300 active CGM
|
||
patients billing $75,000/month, running at the documented 25% improper payment
|
||
rate, absorbs approximately $11,200/month in net CGM write-offs after exhausting
|
||
the appeal process. If Signal CGM prevents 40% of those — the conservative end
|
||
of what pre-submission PA and CMN tracking demonstrably delivers — that client
|
||
recovers $4,500/month. Against a $75/month per-seat cost, that is a 60-to-1
|
||
return on a single deployment. The 60-day pilot makes this calculation concrete
|
||
on your clients' actual numbers.
|
||
|
||
**"This tool reduces the complexity that makes our billing services valuable."**
|
||
Signal CGM operates exclusively in the pre-submission window — the 45 days before
|
||
a claim exists. It does not touch denial management, appeals coordination, payer
|
||
negotiation, remittance reconciliation, or any other function that defines your
|
||
current service relationship. What it does is give your clients fewer denials to
|
||
manage, which reduces the reactive workload on your team without displacing any
|
||
service functions you bill for. The more accurate framing: Signal CGM converts
|
||
reactive denial management — which your staff absorbs at $50–$118 per appeal
|
||
cycle — into a proactive workflow your clients pay you a premium to maintain.
|
||
It is a service tier expansion, not a service substitution.
|
||
|
||
**"We can't expose client PHI to a third-party system."**
|
||
Signal CGM was designed from the architecture level with this constraint as
|
||
non-negotiable. The system ingests five fields only: patient ID (the supplier's
|
||
internal account number, not a Medicare beneficiary identifier), device type,
|
||
shipment date, quantity, and payer code. No patient names, dates of birth, Social
|
||
Security numbers, diagnoses, or contact information enter the system at any point.
|
||
All audit logs hash even the patient ID before storage. The system is self-hosted
|
||
— it runs on your infrastructure or your client's infrastructure, not on STTIL's
|
||
servers. Data never transits a third-party network. The Business Associate
|
||
Agreement and full compliance documentation package are included in both
|
||
acquisition and licensing structures.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
**Next Step: Schedule the pilot conversation.**
|
||
kisasttil@gmail.com | STTIL Solutions LLC | Signal CGM
|
||
|
||
*This document is a confidential business communication intended for the named
|
||
recipient only.*
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### Sources
|
||
- [CMS 2024 CGM Improper Payment Rate — 25.2% / $278.5M](https://www.cms.gov/training-education/medicare-learning-networkr-mln/compliance/medicare-provider-compliance-tips/glucose-monitoring-supplies)
|
||
- [OIG 2025: CGM Payments Exceeded Supplier Costs](https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2025/medicare-payments-for-continuous-glucose-monitors-and-supplies-exceeded-supplier-costs-and-retail-market-prices-indicating-medicare-can-save-at-least-tens-of-millions-of-dollars-in-one-year/)
|
||
- [Federal Authorities Targeting CGM Claims — National Law Review](https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-authorities-are-targeting-continuous-glucose-monitoring-cgm-device)
|
||
- [MA Prior Authorization Denial Rates — KFF 2024](https://www.kff.org/medicare/nearly-50-million-prior-authorization-requests-were-sent-to-medicare-advantage-insurers-in-2024/)
|
||
- [UHC/Synapse Health DME Orders — UHCprovider.com](https://www.uhcprovider.com/en/resource-library/news/2025/synapse-health-manage-dme-orders.html)
|
||
- [CMS Prior Authorization Expansion April 13, 2026](https://www.hcintellect.com/post/medicare-dmepos-prior-authorization-expansion-effective-april-13-2026)
|
||
- [Denial Management Metrics](https://www.panahealthcaresolutions.com/blogs/denial-management-metrics-for-faster-reimbursement/)
|