Fictional demonstration data — concept review only · no real hospital, client, or patient data appears anywhere in this app

The proposal

Three phases. No new legal entity. Start with what already runs.

Each phase stands on its own. If Phase 1 does not earn its keep in ninety days, nothing further is owed and nothing structural has changed for TORCH or its members.

Roadmap

From benchmarks to a risk-ready network.

Phase 1

Network Intelligence Exchange

Days 0–90

  • Peer benchmarks across revenue cycle and margin metrics
  • Payer scorecards: days-to-pay, denial, overturn, underpayment flags
  • Market rate intelligence from public negotiated-rate files
  • Committee-level network view and per-member private view

Commercially: the network view is free to TORCH. Member access is priced at dues level — not as a capital project. No new legal entity — a one-page data-participation addendum to the existing vendor agreement.

Phase 2

CIN Operating Tools

Months 6–18

  • Value-based contract tracking across 90,000+ covered lives
  • Administration of the 80/20 incentive distribution
  • Quality committee reporting packs, generated not assembled
  • RHTP grant evidence packs with traceable source figures

Commercially: the tools the CIN currently runs on spreadsheets and staff time, moved into the same isolated infrastructure the benchmarks already use.

Phase 3

Risk-Ready Network

18+ months

  • Multi-EHR integration — the 14-EHR problem, solved once for the network
  • MSSP ACO enablement, including CMS Advance Investment Payments of $250K plus $45 per beneficiary per quarter
  • Shared-savings engine: attribution, benchmark tracking, distribution

Commercially: the point at which the network can take real risk with its eyes open — and fund the transition partly with CMS money rather than member capital.

Day 0Month 18Risk-ready

Guardrails

Designed to be legally boring.

Antitrust counsel should find this dull. Five rules are built into the product, not promised in a slide.

01

No joint negotiation by Harsight

Harsight never negotiates, brokers, or advises on a rate for any hospital or for the network. Every hospital contracts on its own, as it does today.

02

Neutral third-party aggregation

Members submit to a neutral vendor, never to each other. No member ever receives another member's identified data through UNITE.

03

Aged and aggregated statistics only

Any published statistic is three months or older, drawn from at least five contributing hospitals, with no hospital contributing more than 25% of the figure.

04

Public data stays public data

Market rate intelligence is built from payer transparency files that are already public. Nothing in the market panel comes from another hospital's contract.

05

Vendor addendum only

No joint venture, no new LLC, no ownership change, no governance change. A one-page data-participation addendum, reviewable by TORCH counsel.

The partnership

One system, three lanes — built to reinforce the HARS × TORCH deal.

HARS and TORCH already operate a shared-services partnership: a four-party master agreement (TORCH, TMSI, Shared Services LLC, HARS) in which HARS manages a central billing office model for rural hospitals under TORCH-side governance. UNITE is designed to strengthen that arrangement — never to compete with it.

TORCH CIN — the contracts

The member-owned network: payer contracting, covered lives, quality committees, governance. TORCH owns this lane entirely.

HARS CBO — the execution

Advisory and the central billing office: RCM delivery, vendor curation and oversight, quarterly KPI reporting to the Governance Board. HARS runs this lane.

HARSIGHT UNITE — the measurement

Benchmarks, payer scorecards, market rates: the evidence layer underneath both. Harsight runs this lane — and only this lane.

Board reporting, powered

HARS reports quarterly performance to the CBO Governance Board. UNITE supplies denial rates, days in A/R, days-to-pay, and peer benchmarks as governed evidence — not staff-built spreadsheets.

A clause already anticipates this

The master agreement grants HARS the use of de-identified, aggregated data for benchmarking and pricing analysis. UNITE is that clause, implemented as product.

The honesty layer stays HARS

Every network statistic flows from advisor-verified, signed hospital data. HARS validation is the reason the numbers can be trusted — UNITE makes that work visible.

The funnel runs both ways

UNITE benchmarks surface the revenue-cycle gaps the CBO's bundled services fix; CBO results show up as measurable improvement in UNITE — the evidence behind the hospital rebate story.

No overlap by design: UNITE never negotiates vendor pricing (HARS's authority under the agreement), never delivers RCM services, and never touches the CBO's economics. The CIN contracts. The CBO executes. UNITE measures.

The ask

Four steps, and the fifth hospital turns the lights on.

1

A working session

Ninety minutes with TORCH leadership and the payer committee to test the concept against how the CIN actually operates.

2

A 5–8 hospital pilot cohort

Volunteer members already producing the files. The fifth hospital unlocks the first live benchmark — below five, nothing publishes.

3

Attorney-reviewed addendum

TORCH counsel reviews the one-page data-participation addendum before any hospital submits anything.

4

Joint RHTP tracking

Track Rural Health Transformation Program opportunities together, with evidence packs generated from data the members already send.

What TORCH is not being asked for: no capital commitment, no new entity, no exclusivity, no change to the CIN's governance or ownership, and no obligation beyond Phase 1. Harsight is not proposing to build or become a clinically integrated network. TORCH owns the network; UNITE is the intelligence layer that sits underneath it.