For tech-enabled healthcare services CEOs
In 30 days: every AI initiative ranked by the work it removes, the review it creates, and what it costs to deploy across sites. Plus what to stop funding.
Diagnosis inside the first two weeks. Built from your existing operating data, roadmap, and board reporting. No workshops. No transformation program.
That is not a cost reduction. It is a second step. The tools are live. Adoption is real. Clinicians even like it. And cost per encounter has not moved, because the work did not leave the model. It changed shape.
If cost per encounter has not moved, the model is not the problem. The review threshold is, and it has no owner.
The questions your board is about to ask:
Their clinical trials, run from inside the technology vendor that delivered them.
An FDA-regulated wearable, through two of the most demanding enterprise buyers there are. Security, privacy, clinical, and procurement all had a veto. None of them used it.
Four functions hold a veto over AI in regulated healthcare: regulatory, quality, security, and privacy. I have held accountability in all four. More than 30 FDA-regulated products through those gates as an operator, not an advisor: AliveCor, LabCorp, Vineti, Korio, Clip Health, endpoint Clinical.
Not another strategy deck. Decisions you can make this quarter.
The model usually works. The delivery model does not change. That happens for reasons that sit outside the technology.
These are operating-model problems. They have direct consequences for margin, and for what the business is worth.
The second part is the part almost nobody does.
At a healthtech SaaS company, every client engagement opened with the same three documents: a project plan, a requirements specification, and a risk assessment. Project management owned them. It took roughly six weeks, and the engagement did not move until they were done.
Everything those documents needed already existed. It was in the proposal, and it was in the intake form the client filled out with us at kickoff. The six weeks were not spent finding information. They were spent transcribing it, formatting it, and routing it.
We built agents to draft all three from the proposal and the intake form. The draft came back in a day and a half.
That is where most companies stop, and it is why their cost per unit never moves. A fast draft that still gets read end to end by the same person who used to write it has not removed any work. It has moved it.
So I set the review threshold. What a human still had to read, what they could sign without reading, and what nobody needed to look at again. I made that call, and I owned it if it went wrong.
It did not go wrong. At six months we cut review further and put monitoring behind it. At twelve months we cut it again. The reduction was scheduled, not requested.
Project managers stopped producing documents and started running more engagements. The same team carried more projects.
The threshold is the decision your organization is avoiding. It is uncomfortable because it has a name attached to it, and if it goes wrong that name is on the incident report. That discomfort is what is sitting between you and the margin.
“Arvita crushes challenging problems and creates order where there is uncertainty. I hired her, and she became an integral member of the leadership team. I hired her again to join me on the founding team at Korio.”
“I love Arvita's discipline and the structure of her thinking. Her work was thorough, well-organized, and genuinely useful.”
Fixed scope, fixed date, both agreed in writing before any work begins. No hourly billing, no staffing pyramid, no change orders.
No board deck. No NDA. No data. Write me a paragraph on each of your three biggest AI initiatives: what each is meant to do, what it has cost, and roughly what share of its output still gets human review. That last number is usually the whole answer.
You get back the three weakest assumptions in what you sent, and what I would do about each. Yours to keep, whether or not you hire me. Read it, then decide whether we should talk.
Request the teardownRanked initiatives, unit economics, review burden, rollout cost, adoption constraints, decision rights, board measures, and a 90-day execution plan.
The title is the shorthand. The substance is decision rights. Every other engagement on this page ends in a document that somebody else still has to sign. This one does not. You give me authority over a defined set of calls, and I make them.
Senior judgment while you execute. Monthly executive sessions, business-case pressure testing, vendor decisions, roadmap reprioritization, adoption and rollout reviews, board preparation, and early warning on operating or regulatory risk.
Book a callHigh adoption with flat unit cost is the most common pattern I see. Usage is not the same as work leaving the model. If cost to serve has not moved, this is exactly the diagnosis to run.
Sixty to ninety minutes each with a handful of executives, plus access to operating data and reporting that already exists. I do not run workshops.
Almost nobody does. Building a defensible one is part of the work, and it is often the most useful thing you keep.
Then you can defend it in writing, with evidence, at the next board meeting. A plan that survives scrutiny is worth more than one that has never been tested.
The Healthcare Services AI CEO Circle puts you in a confidential room with five other CEOs working through the same decisions. One session belongs to you.
Explore the circleIt is judged by whether the work leaves the model. If AI is in the plan but cost to serve has not moved, the next step is not another rollout. It is a better operating decision.
Investor or operating partner? Read the portfolio page · Diligencing a target? Read the diligence page