The Disrupted Podcast

There are genuine operational insights buried here - particularly around value-based care attribution mechanics, the hospice billing trap, and the CCM minutes threshold - but they are heavily diluted by internal logistics (laptop rollouts, personnel shout-outs, merger admin). The ratio of novel-per-minute ideas to filler is low; a non-healthcare B2B operator would find most of the episode irrelevant.

“with those folks that are, say, between a, uh, one and a half and a three and a half on the risk score, that capturing 300 minutes of CCM a month put us into a window of better cost savings with those patients”

“it doesn't start over at the beginning of the year. If I was wearing a nursing home three years ago and I saw you 12 times in the nursing home and I have not been to any one provider more than 12 times, I'm still”

The attribution mechanics in value-based care and the observation that hospices inadvertently destroy RAF scores - costing the parent organization tens of millions - are genuinely non-obvious. However, the episode never steps back to generalise these into transferable frameworks; it stays operational and internal, limiting its originality for a broader audience.

“It will cost us about $20 million this year in money that should have been paid back to us as incentives and bonuses”

“We got the idea from somebody else who tried to sell us something like that. But they wanted such an extreme amount of money. We figured out that we could really do that ourselves internally. And he's done that for basically nothing”

Scott is clearly a hands-on operator - literally visiting nursing homes, negotiating the merger, setting bonus structures - with evident domain depth in value-based care economics. He is not a thought-leader or career podcast guest, but his scale is regional rather than large, and the context is an internal company communication rather than an expert interview.

“I've been, um, of course, in Atlanta the last couple of weeks, meeting with, uh, a lot of the providers and going into buildings”

“we have been discharging about 460 patients a month and we've been discharging them when they leave the skilled”

The episode is unusually concrete: named software systems, specific dollar figures, percentage targets, staffing ratios, and a $20M attributed-revenue gap are all cited. The billing uplift math (from $80 average to >$130 per visit, a 30% increase) and ACP target ranges (10% actual vs. 18-20% goal) are the kind of specificity rarely heard even in specialist podcasts.

“we're going to take people who've been, they've been collecting on average of about $80 a visit and now blended with doing your advanced care plans at 15 to 20% of your visits, you should actually be able to get an average charge of visits well in excess of $100 and probably $30”

“right now we're sitting at about 10% ACPS. We've been running 13. We should be at minimum of 15. But I really 18 to 20 is kind of my number”

The host functions as a cheerleader rather than an interviewer - responding almost exclusively with 'wow,' 'yeah,' and 'that's amazing' while asking only broad, soft prompts. There is zero pushback, no probing follow-up on the $20M figure or the attribution mechanics, and no productive disagreement anywhere in the episode.

“Wow, that's huge.”

“Yeah, yeah. Because I mean a normal provider, they're not, they're just not going to, they don't, they don't operate like that.”