Problems › We Do Not Know Which Products Make Money › Healthcare Providers
Every healthcare provider has a value-based contract that everyone assumes is profitable, and it is usually the one being subsidised. The version of this question that applies to healthcare providers is not the generic one. Downside risk has been accepted on 38,000 lives without the cost-per-episode data needed to price it — so an answer that ignores cost per episode will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from payer mix and panel size rather than from revenue.
Every healthcare provider has a value-based contract that everyone assumes is profitable, and it is usually the one being subsidised. The version of this question that applies to healthcare providers is not the generic one. Downside risk has been accepted on 38,000 lives without the cost-per-episode data needed to price it — so an answer that ignores cost per episode will be confidently wrong. The analysis has to start from payer mix and panel size rather than from revenue.
Contract-level contribution is genuinely hard because most costs are shared across episodes, and the usual allocation — by revenue — quietly guarantees the answer. Allocating overhead in proportion to revenue makes high-revenue contracts look expensive and low-revenue ones look efficient, which is precisely backwards when the low-revenue contract consumes disproportionate attention from attributed lives.
A workable approach allocates only what is genuinely traceable to an episode or provider and leaves the rest unallocated. You end up with contribution by contract or panel and one honest pool of shared cost, which is far more useful than a fully-absorbed number that nobody trusts.
The result is usually uncomfortable. In most portfolios a minority of contracts carries the whole thing, and at least one long-standing service line has been losing money for years with everyone assuming otherwise.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Profitability is quoted only as a company-wide margin with no breakdown by payer mix or contract
✓ No value-based contracts have been exited despite known downside risk on attributed lives
✓ CFO and medical director give different answers about contribution per provider on the same panel
The move that usually makes it worse. Fully absorbing overhead into service lines or contracts, which produces a precise number built on an arbitrary rule and gets defended because it looks rigorous.
It is for you if you run or finance a healthcare provider and product profitability is quoted as a company-wide gross margin. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a healthcare provider. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Cedar Ridge Health Partners, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — 38,000 attributed lives under value-based contracts.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Customer Value Architecture · sample company profile
The move. Turn 38,000 downside-risk lives into a self-funding 36-month analytics platform via payer co-development.
The leak it closes. Settlement lag (6–9 months) and payer audit adjustments reduced via internal attribution engine
The assumption it rests on. Payer agrees to 5-year exclusivity and 15–25% platform margin split — the engine put the probability at 0.75.
| Investment required | $2.5–3.0M over 18 months |
| Expected return | 7.6–9.1× over three years on $2.5–3.0M investment |
| Revenue, year 1 | $0 (platform build phase) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $6.9–11.4M (first shared-savings settlement) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $13.7–22.8M (full run-rate) |
| Exit criteria | Terminate if payer refuses exclusivity by Month 6 OR if attribution accuracy <80% by Month 18 OR if shared-savings pool < $60M by end of contract year 2 |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Matrix Strategy, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For healthcare providers it works through cost per episode, payer mix, panel size and contribution per provider, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Almost never for the decision at hand. Traceable costs plus an unallocated pool gets you the ranking, and the ranking is what you act on. Full ABC is a project that frequently outlives the decision that prompted it.
Say so explicitly and price the support. A loss-making line that genuinely pulls profitable revenue is a marketing cost with a name, which is a fine thing to be — as long as somebody decided it.
Annually, and after any significant mix change. The ranking is more stable than the numbers, so the exercise gets cheaper each time.
Materially, yes. Downside risk has been accepted on 38,000 lives without the cost-per-episode data needed to price it — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are cost per episode, payer mix, panel size, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on cost per episode and payer mix. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית