Conditional discovery paths that branch by ownership, level of care, payer mix, and persona. What to ask, when, and why—with full RCI scoring.
Most discovery call templates are linear. Question 1, Question 2, Question 3. They assume every prospect is the same shape. They're not. A PE-backed COO who manages 6 residential facilities has fundamentally different pain points than a nonprofit ED running a single PHP program on Medicaid reimbursement.
This template is conditional. The questions you ask in minute 5 depend on the answers you got in minute 2. The follow-ups branch based on ownership structure, Kipu customer status, payer mix, and clinical documentation maturity. You don't need to memorize all paths—you need to know which branch you're on.
"Product selling solves acute pain. Platform selling transforms how operations work. That transformation requires earning the right to sell by understanding their business better than competitors understand it—and sometimes better than the prospect understands it themselves."
The goal of deep discovery isn't to fill out a form. It's to understand whether this prospect has a problem we can solve, whether they know they have it, and whether they're in a position to act on it. If the answer to all three is yes, you're qualified. If any is no, you know exactly where to invest or disengage.
Four dimensions determine every prospect's discovery path. Score each dimension to build a composite Revenue Capture Index (RCI).
| Category | Identifier | Decision Driver | Timeline Pressure | Key Discovery Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE-Backed | FP_PE | EBITDA optimization | High (45 days) | Probe hold period, platform strategy, bolt-on acquisitions |
| VC-Backed | FP_VC | Growth metrics | Very High (30 days) | Probe funding stage, expansion plans, unit economics |
| Owner-Operator | FP_OO | Personal vision + cash flow | Low (90 days) | Probe succession plans, pain tolerance, vendor relationships |
| Health System BH | FP_HS | Enterprise alignment | Very Low (180 days) | Probe IT governance, integration requirements |
| 501(c)(3) Mission | NP_501 | Mission alignment + sustainability | Low | Probe grant funding, board dynamics |
| FQHC | NP_FQHC | Compliance mandate + federal reporting | Moderate | Probe UDS requirements, HRSA priorities |
| County-Operated | GOV_CTY | Budget cycle alignment | Very Low | Probe procurement requirements, budget timing |
| State-Operated | GOV_ST | Legislative mandate | Very Low | Probe funding streams, interoperability mandates |
"Walk me through the ownership structure. Is this PE-backed, founder-led, nonprofit, or part of a larger system?"
"Who makes the final decision on revenue cycle vendors—and who influences that decision?"
"What's your timeline for making a change? Is there a board review, budget cycle, or external event driving urgency?"
The ownership answer dictates every subsequent branch. Get this right in the first 2 minutes.
| Level of Care | ASAM Level | Regulatory Complexity | Billing Complexity | Key Discovery Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTP (Opioid Treatment Program) | 1-OTP | Very High (DEA + SAMHSA + State) | Moderate (bundled rates) | Dispensing documentation, take-home dose tracking, SAMHSA compliance |
| Inpatient Detox | 3.7 / 4.0 | High (medical necessity, concurrent review) | High (per-diem, auth-dependent) | Medical necessity documentation, concurrent review workflow, LOS management |
| Residential | 3.1 / 3.5 | Moderate-High | High (auth management, LOS) | Authorization management, continued stay reviews, discharge planning |
| PHP (Partial Hospitalization) | 2.5 | Moderate | High (service-level billing) | Group/individual session tracking, attendance verification, service-level documentation |
| IOP (Intensive Outpatient) | 2.1 | Low-Moderate | Moderate (session-based) | Session documentation, attendance tracking, step-down transition |
| Outpatient | 1.0 | Low | Low-Moderate (CPT-based) | CPT code accuracy, modifier usage, telehealth documentation |
OTP programs have unique regulatory overlay (DEA registration, SAMHSA certification, state OTP licensure) that creates discovery questions no other level of care requires. Always probe dispensing system integration, take-home dose authorization tracking, and state-by-state regulatory variation when OTP is present.
| Payer Composition | Identifier | Reimbursement Profile | Primary Billing Challenges | RCI Modifier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial/PPO Dominant (>60%) | PAY_COM | High reimbursement, variable | OON negotiations, VOB accuracy, balance billing compliance | +15 |
| Medicaid Dominant (>60%) | PAY_MCD | Low reimbursement, predictable | Rate adequacy, state-specific rules, timely filing | +5 |
| Medicare Dominant (>40%) | PAY_MCR | Moderate, rule-heavy | Compliance burden, documentation standards, audit risk | +10 |
| Mixed Payer (no dominant) | PAY_MIX | Variable across payers | Workflow complexity, payer-specific rules, staff training | +12 |
| Self-Pay / Cash Dominant (>40%) | PAY_SP | High per-unit, collection risk | Collections, payment plans, insurance verification gaps | +8 |
| Government Contract (block grant) | PAY_GOV | Fixed, reporting-dependent | Grant compliance, utilization reporting, cost allocation | +3 |
"What's your approximate payer mix breakdown? Commercial vs. Medicaid vs. self-pay?"
"Which payers cause you the most billing headaches? Where do denials concentrate?"
"Are you doing any out-of-network billing? How are those negotiations going?"
Commercial-dominant payer mix = highest revenue capture opportunity. Medicaid-dominant = compliance-first conversation.
| Size Category | Identifier | Location Count | Characteristics | Decision Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Site | SZ_SS | 1 | Owner involved in everything, lean staff, relationship-driven decisions | Fast (owner decides) |
| Small Multi-Site | SZ_SM | 2–5 | Growing pains, inconsistent processes, centralization needs | Moderate (small leadership team) |
| Mid-Market | SZ_MM | 6–20 | Professional management, defined roles, committee decisions | Slow (multiple stakeholders) |
| Enterprise | SZ_ENT | 20+ | Corporate structure, procurement process, IT governance | Very Slow (formal procurement) |
"How many locations are you operating across? Are they all the same level of care?"
"Is your billing centralized or does each site handle its own?"
"When you've made vendor decisions before, what did that process look like? How many people were involved?"
Size determines deal velocity and required stakeholder mapping depth.
Based on dimensional qualification, select the discovery path that matches the prospect's composite profile. Each path has a unique opening reframe, key discovery questions, and RCI weighting adjustments.
Profile: FP_PE + PAY_COM + SZ_SM/SZ_MM + Residential/PHP
Opening Reframe: "Most PE-backed treatment groups we talk to are measuring revenue cycle performance on collections rate and days in A/R. But the operators who are actually maximizing EBITDA are measuring revenue per billable hour and denial recovery velocity. The difference between those two measurement frameworks is usually 12–18% in captured revenue."
"What does your board expect from rev cycle performance this quarter?"
"How are you measuring billing performance across sites—is it centralized or per-facility?"
"When your biller misses a prior auth, how long until someone notices?"
"What's your current net days in A/R? Do you know the number by payer?"
"If I could show you a 15% denial rate reduction in 90 days, who else needs to be in that conversation?"
Listen For:
• Board pressure on specific financial metrics (EBITDA margin, collections %)
• Multi-site inconsistency in billing processes
• Lack of visibility into denial root causes
• Third-party biller underperformance frustration
• M&A integration creating billing chaos
• Hold period pressure driving urgency
| RCI Component | Weighting Adjustment | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Leakage | +20% | OON commercial billing has highest recovery potential |
| Decision Speed | +15% | PE timeline pressure accelerates evaluation |
| Compliance Risk | -5% | Lower regulatory burden at residential/PHP vs. OTP |
| Integration Complexity | +10% | Multi-site integration = higher platform value |
Profile: NP_501/NP_FQHC + PAY_MCD + SZ_SS/SZ_SM + OTP
Opening Reframe: "The nonprofit OTP programs we work with aren't losing money because they don't care about revenue. They're losing money because their compliance posture is so conservative that they're leaving billable services on the table. The irony is that better documentation actually reduces compliance risk AND increases revenue."
"How does your billing data flow into your grant reporting?"
"When SAMHSA or your state agency asks for outcomes data tied to services billed, how long does that take to pull?"
"Walk me through your dispensing documentation workflow. How does it connect to billing?"
"Are you tracking take-home dose authorizations in the same system as billing?"
"Has a billing issue ever jeopardized a grant renewal?"
Listen For:
• Manual reconciliation between billing and grant systems
• Fear of audit findings driving underbilling
• Disconnected dispensing and billing systems
• SAMHSA survey anxiety
• Staff wearing multiple hats (billing + clinical + admin)
• Conservative compliance posture leaving revenue on the table
| RCI Component | Weighting Adjustment | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Leakage | +10% | Underbilling from conservative compliance posture |
| Compliance Risk | +25% | Triple regulatory overlay (DEA + SAMHSA + State) |
| Decision Speed | -10% | Board approval cycle, grant funding constraints |
| Mission Alignment | +15% | Sustainability narrative resonates with nonprofit boards |
Profile: FP_PE/FP_VC + PAY_MIX + SZ_MM + PHP/IOP
Opening Reframe: "When you went from 2 sites to 6, your clinical model scaled. Your billing model didn't. The organizations that successfully scale PHP/IOP revenue cycle don't just hire more billers—they standardize the workflow so that every site produces clean claims the same way. That's the difference between growth that improves margin and growth that dilutes it."
"How consistent is your billing process across all locations?"
"When you open a new site, how long does it take to get billing operations to the same level as your best site?"
"What's the variance in denial rates across your locations?"
"How are you tracking group session attendance and tying it to billing across sites?"
"If one biller leaves at one site, how does that affect billing across the network?"
Listen For:
• Site-to-site variance in billing performance
• "Biller island" problem (each site independent)
• New site ramp time exceeding 90 days
• Group session attendance tracking as manual/inconsistent
• Scaling plans that will exacerbate current process gaps
• Frustration with per-site billing cost structure
| RCI Component | Weighting Adjustment | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Operational Scalability | +25% | Multi-site inconsistency = primary pain |
| Revenue Leakage | +15% | Variance across sites indicates missed revenue |
| Decision Speed | +10% | Growth pressure creates urgency |
| Integration Complexity | +15% | Multi-site standardization = high platform value |
Profile: FP_HS + PAY_MIX/PAY_MCR + SZ_ENT + Multiple LOC
Opening Reframe: "Health systems are great at acute care revenue cycle. But behavioral health billing is a completely different animal—different authorization workflows, different documentation standards, different payer rules. The BH division that tries to use the acute care billing playbook leaves 20–30% of collectible revenue on the table."
"How does your BH division's revenue cycle fit within the broader hospital system?"
"Is BH billing handled by the same team as acute care, or is there a dedicated BH billing function?"
"What's the IT approval process for new clinical or financial systems?"
"How does your BH division's margin compare to other departments?"
"If we could improve BH revenue without requiring system-level EMR changes, who would champion that internally?"
Listen For:
• BH treated as afterthought in system priorities
• Acute care billing team struggling with BH complexity
• IT gatekeeping preventing BH-specific solutions
• BH division subsidized by other departments
• New BH expansion initiative needing financial justification
• Epic/Cerner integration requirements and constraints
| RCI Component | Weighting Adjustment | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Integration Complexity | +25% | Enterprise IT environment = highest integration bar |
| Decision Speed | -20% | Formal procurement, IT governance, committee approval |
| Revenue Leakage | +15% | Acute-care-first billing teams systematically underbill BH |
| Deal Size | +20% | Enterprise contracts = largest revenue potential |
If IT is a blocker, identify the clinical champion who can build the internal business case. Navigate around IT, not through IT.
Profile: FP_OO + PAY_COM/PAY_MIX + SZ_SS + Residential/IOP
Opening Reframe: "You started this facility to help people recover. Somewhere along the way, you became a billing manager, a compliance officer, and an accounts receivable specialist. The owner-operators we work with don't need more billing staff—they need to stop being billing staff."
"How much of your personal time goes into billing oversight each week?"
"When's the last time you audited your biller's work? What did you find?"
"If your billing person left tomorrow, what happens?"
"Are you thinking about succession planning or a future sale? How clean is your financial data?"
"What's the biggest billing surprise you've had in the last year?"
Listen For:
• Personal stress around billing ("I lose sleep over it")
• Single point of failure in billing staff
• Surprise write-offs or unexpected denials
• Succession or sale considerations
• Distrust of current biller but no alternative
• Owner doing 10+ hours/week of billing oversight
| RCI Component | Weighting Adjustment | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Owner Relief | +25% | Personal pain = strongest emotional driver |
| Revenue Leakage | +15% | Under-resourced billing = systematic underbilling |
| Decision Speed | +20% | Owner is the decision maker—no committee |
| Deal Size | -15% | Single site = smaller contract value |
If they mention wanting to sell the facility, pivot to valuation readiness. Clean revenue cycle data dramatically increases facility valuation.
Profile: GOV_CTY/GOV_ST + PAY_GOV/PAY_MCD + SZ_SM/SZ_MM + Multiple LOC
Opening Reframe: "Government-operated behavioral health programs have a unique challenge: the funding is available, the mandate is clear, but the procurement process wasn't designed for revenue cycle technology. The programs that move fastest are the ones that frame this as a compliance investment, not a revenue tool."
"What does your procurement process look like for technology vendors?"
"Is this a budgeted line item, or would we need to create a business case for new funding?"
"Who are the stakeholders that need to approve this—and what's the approval timeline?"
"How are you currently reporting on revenue cycle performance to your funding sources?"
"Are there interoperability mandates from the state that affect your technology choices?"
Listen For:
• Budget cycle timing (fiscal year alignment)
• RFP/RFQ requirements vs. sole-source thresholds
• Legislative or regulatory mandates creating urgency
• Interoperability requirements (state HIE, PDMP)
• Federal funding streams (SAMHSA, HRSA) with reporting requirements
• Internal champion vs. procurement bureaucracy
| RCI Component | Weighting Adjustment | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance Mandate | +20% | Government programs must comply—strongest forcing function |
| Decision Speed | -25% | Procurement process = longest timeline |
| Deal Stability | +20% | Government contracts are long-term, stable revenue |
| Revenue Leakage | +5% | Block grant funding limits revenue upside |
Frame as compliance investment, not revenue tool. Government buyers respond to risk mitigation, not revenue optimization.
Different personas require different discovery approaches. Match the methodology to the person across the table.
Executives (CEO, CFO, COO, VP Revenue Cycle) respond to insights they haven't considered. The Challenger Sale methodology reframes their thinking before presenting solutions.
Demonstrate credibility by referencing a pattern you've seen in their specific segment. "We work with a number of PE-backed residential groups in the 4–8 site range, and there's a pattern we see repeatedly..."
Introduce a perspective they haven't considered. Challenge their current assumption about what's causing their revenue cycle problem. "Most groups measure collections rate. But the real metric is revenue per billable hour—and that changes the entire conversation."
Support the reframe with data. Use benchmark data, industry statistics, or anonymized client results. "Our data across 200+ behavioral health facilities shows that the average denial rate is 18%, but the top quartile is at 6%. That's not a billing problem—it's a documentation workflow problem."
Make it personal. Connect the data to their specific situation and the consequences of inaction. "For a group your size, that delta represents roughly $1.2M in annual revenue that's being left on the table. And every quarter you wait, that number compounds."
Paint the picture of what changes. Not your product—the operational transformation. "The groups that close this gap don't just hire better billers. They change the workflow so clinical documentation drives billing automatically."
Only now introduce your solution as the vehicle for the transformation you've described. "This is exactly what Kipu RCM was built to do—close the gap between clinical documentation and clean claims."
Clinical leaders (Clinical Director, Medical Director, Director of Nursing) speak the language of motivational interviewing. Meet them in their framework, then bridge to business impact.
"Tell me about how your clinical team currently approaches documentation. What works well?"
"It sounds like your team really cares about documentation quality. That's actually rarer than you'd think."
"So what I'm hearing is that your clinicians want to do thorough documentation, but the time pressure means they're often choosing between patient care and paperwork."
"Let me make sure I have this right: strong clinical intent, time-constrained execution, and the billing team is catching the gaps after the fact."
"Here's what's interesting—the facilities where clinicians report the highest satisfaction with documentation are the ones where the templates are structured to capture both clinical quality AND billing requirements simultaneously. It's not an either/or."
"If your clinicians could complete documentation in less time AND have it automatically support billing—what would that mean for your team?"
When clinical personas resist the business conversation, use these MI-informed redirects.
| Sustain Talk | MI-Informed Response |
|---|---|
| "We're clinicians, not billers." | "Absolutely. And the best billing systems are the ones that don't require clinicians to think about billing at all. The documentation serves the patient—the system handles the rest." |
| "Our documentation is fine." | "I hear that. And you may be right. Would it be useful to see how your documentation compares to the top-performing facilities? Sometimes there are quick wins hiding in plain sight." |
| "We don't want to change our clinical workflow." | "That makes sense—clinical workflow should drive technology, not the other way around. What if we could improve billing outcomes without changing the clinical workflow at all?" |
| "Revenue isn't my department." | "You're right that revenue is the CFO's problem. But clinical documentation quality? That's where the money is made or lost—and that IS your domain." |
Operational leaders (Compliance Officer, Billing Manager, IT Director) want specifics. They respond to consultative depth, not high-level vision. Show them you understand their daily pain.
Opening: "What keeps you up at night from a compliance perspective? Where are your biggest audit exposure areas?"
Key Insight: "The compliance officers we work with say the hardest part isn't knowing the rules—it's proving they followed them. Documentation of compliance is harder than compliance itself."
Quantification Focus: "How many hours per week does your team spend on compliance documentation vs. actual compliance monitoring?"
Opening: "Walk me through a typical day for your billing team. Where do the bottlenecks hit?"
Key Insight: "The best billing managers we talk to aren't asking for more staff. They're asking for better data from the clinical side. When clinical documentation is structured correctly, billing becomes verification, not reconstruction."
Quantification Focus: "What percentage of claims require rework before submission? How many touches does an average claim take from service to payment?"
Opening: "What's your integration landscape look like? What systems talk to each other, and where are the manual handoffs?"
Key Insight: "IT leaders in behavioral health tell us their biggest challenge isn't the technology—it's managing 6 different vendor integrations that were each sold as 'seamless.' A single platform approach eliminates integration maintenance."
Quantification Focus: "How many hours per month does your team spend maintaining integrations between clinical and financial systems?"
For existing Kipu EMR customers, skip the EMR evaluation and go directly to revenue capture assessment.
Positioning Statement: "You're already generating excellent clinical data in Kipu. The question is: how much of that data is actually translating into captured revenue? Our experience is that even well-run Kipu customers leave 15–25% of collectible revenue on the table due to workflow gaps between clinical documentation and billing execution."
"What's your current time from service delivery to claim submission?"
"How many claims require manual intervention before submission?"
"What's your first-pass clean claim rate?"
Benchmark: Top performers submit within 48 hours of service with 95%+ first-pass clean claim rate.
"What's your overall denial rate? Do you know it by payer and by denial reason?"
"When a claim is denied, what's your average time to rework and resubmit?"
"What percentage of denied claims are actually appealed vs. written off?"
Benchmark: Top performers maintain <8% denial rate and appeal 95%+ of denials within 7 days.
"How are you tracking prior authorizations and continued stay reviews?"
"How often do auth lapses result in unbillable services?"
"Who owns the auth process—clinical team, billing team, or both?"
Benchmark: Zero auth-related denials is achievable with proactive tracking. Every auth lapse = 100% revenue loss for that service.
"What's your current days in A/R? What's it been trending?"
"What percentage of your A/R is over 90 days?"
"Do you know your A/R by payer? Which payers are slowest?"
Benchmark: Top performers maintain <35 days in A/R with <10% over 90 days.
"When's the last time you did a charge capture audit? What was the result?"
"Are there services your clinicians deliver that never make it to a claim?"
"How confident are you that every billable service is being billed at the correct rate?"
Benchmark: Charge capture audits typically reveal 5–15% in missed billable services at facilities that haven't audited recently.
The RCI score synthesizes discovery data into a single prioritization metric. Higher score = more urgent opportunity with greater revenue capture potential.
| Component | Weight | What It Measures | How to Score (0–10) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Leakage Severity | 25% | How much collectible revenue is being lost | 0 = minimal leakage, 10 = severe (denial rate >25%, A/R >60 days) |
| Decision-Maker Access | 20% | Can you reach the person who signs | 0 = no access, 10 = direct relationship with signer |
| Timeline Urgency | 20% | External pressure to act | 0 = no urgency, 10 = imminent event (audit, board review, biller quit) |
| Kipu EMR Alignment | 15% | Existing Kipu customer or strong fit | 0 = incompatible EMR, 10 = existing Kipu customer |
| Clinical Readiness | 10% | Documentation foundation for RCM success | 0 = broken clinical docs, 10 = strong documentation culture |
| Deal Size Potential | 10% | Annual contract value potential | 0 = <$50K ACV, 10 = >$500K ACV |
After calculating the base RCI score (0–100), apply dimensional modifiers from the conditional path tables above. Each path has specific weighting adjustments that shift the score based on the prospect's profile.
Formula: Final RCI = Base Score + Sum(Dimensional Modifiers)
Cap: Maximum RCI = 100. Minimum RCI = 0.
Example: Base score of 62 + PE timeline modifier (+15%) + OON commercial modifier (+20%) - single site size (-15%) = 82 (Critical priority)
| RCI Score | Priority | Action | Sales Motion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–30 | Low | Nurture | Educational content, quarterly check-ins, benchmark sharing |
| 31–50 | Moderate | Qualified | Consultative engagement, ROI analysis, stakeholder mapping |
| 51–70 | High | Active Opportunity | Challenger approach, demo sequence, proposal development |
| 71–85 | Critical | Fast Track | Urgent value demonstration, executive alignment, compressed timeline |
| 86–100 | Urgent | Immediate | Executive escalation, same-week demo, expedited proposal |
This is where deals are made or disqualified. Revenue cycle breaks at clinical documentation.
• Clinical notes completed within 24 hours of service
• Standardized templates aligned to payer requirements
• Clinical champion who understands the billing connection
• Clinician turnover below 25% annually
• Prior authorization tracked proactively
• Documentation audits conducted at least quarterly
These prospects are ready for RCM. The clinical foundation is there.
• Clinical note backlog exceeding 48 hours
• Clinician turnover above 30%
• No standardized documentation templates
• No clinical champion identified
• Prior authorization tracked on spreadsheets or not at all
• Failed technology adoption in the last 18 months
These need EMR remediation first. RCM alone won't solve the problem.
"What's your average time from service delivery to completed clinical note?"
"Do your clinicians use standardized templates, or is documentation free-form?"
"Who on your clinical team understands how documentation affects reimbursement?"
"What's your clinician turnover rate? How does that affect billing consistency?"
"When's the last time you audited clinical documentation against payer requirements?"
"Have you tried implementing new clinical technology in the last two years? What happened?"
At each stage, confirm before proceeding.
Does the prospect acknowledge a specific revenue cycle problem? Not "we could always improve"—a named pain point with measurable impact.
If no: educate, share benchmarks, revisit. If still no after 2nd attempt: park the opportunity.
Have you confirmed who signs? Not who evaluates, not who influences—who signs. And do you have access to that person?
If no after 3 attempts to identify: Tier 3 at best. Likely disqualify.
Is there budget allocated, can budget be created (ROI justification), or is this a "maybe next fiscal year" situation? Each has a different playbook.
If "next fiscal year": set calendar reminder, provide ROI doc for internal advocacy, move to nurture.
Is the clinical documentation foundation solid enough for RCM to work? Or does the prospect need EMR remediation first?
If clinical foundation is broken: recommend EMR engagement first. RCM on top of broken docs = failed implementation.
Does the prospect's timeline match our implementation capacity? Is there an external event creating urgency (audit, board review, grant deadline, M&A)?
If no urgency: create it through benchmark data and competitive intelligence. Or accept the longer timeline.
Same questions, different depth. Existing Kipu customers skip the EMR evaluation entirely.
Skip: EMR evaluation, integration feasibility, technical assessment
Focus on: Current billing process, denial patterns, A/R aging, biller performance
Key question: "You're generating great clinical data in Kipu. How much of that is actually translating to clean claims?"
Faster path: Can often move to demo after single discovery call
The integration story is already told. Focus entirely on revenue recovery.
Add: EMR identification, integration compatibility, IT stakeholder mapping
Focus on: Full workflow assessment plus technical feasibility
Key question: "What EMR are you on, and what's the integration story been like with other financial systems?"
Longer path: Typically requires technical validation call before demo
Integration confidence is the unlock. If IT says no, everything stops.
Tear-off reference for live discovery calls. Print or pin to your second monitor.
| Dimension | Key Question | What to Listen For | Path Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | "Who owns the organization?" | PE fund name, founder story, board mention, system affiliation | Determines timeline, decision process, value proposition framing |
| Level of Care | "What levels of care do you operate?" | ASAM levels, OTP mention, detox vs. residential vs. outpatient | Determines regulatory complexity, billing complexity, discovery depth |
| Payer Mix | "What's your payer mix breakdown?" | Commercial %, Medicaid %, self-pay, OON status | Determines revenue capture potential, primary billing challenges |
| Size | "How many locations?" | Single vs. multi-site, centralized vs. distributed, growth plans | Determines deal size, decision speed, scalability conversation |
| Persona | Approach | Opening Move | Value Language | Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEO / Owner | Challenger | Reframe with industry insight | Growth, margin, strategic advantage | Technical details, feature lists |
| CFO / VP Finance | Challenger | Lead with benchmark data | EBITDA impact, cash flow, ROI | Clinical jargon, soft benefits |
| COO | Challenger | Operational pattern recognition | Efficiency, scalability, consistency | High-level vision without specifics |
| Clinical Director | MI-Challenger Hybrid | Open question about documentation | Clinician satisfaction, patient outcomes, documentation quality | Revenue-first language, billing jargon |
| Compliance Officer | Consultative | Audit risk assessment | Risk reduction, audit readiness, regulatory confidence | Revenue optimization framing |
| Billing Manager | Consultative | Workflow walkthrough | Workload reduction, clean claim rate, denial resolution | Replacing their role, automation anxiety |
| IT Director | Consultative | Integration landscape mapping | Reduced integration burden, single platform, security | Downplaying technical requirements |