The data lake becomes useful at the next decision.

Separate market size from capture

A leakage estimate describes care flowing through a market. It does not establish that the organization can or should capture every dollar. The next layer is addressability: geography, payer participation, patient needs, referral behavior and available service capacity.

I would treat the modeled $125.9M leakage opportunity as the beginning of a prioritization process. The decision is which portions survive an operational and economic screen, then which small set can support a credible execution plan.

Make the allocation explicit

The documented work connects claims analysis, provider targeting, value-based agreements and home-based care design. Those inputs belong in a shared allocation discussion so analytics, sales and service-line leaders can weigh the same opportunities and constraints.

I would compare opportunities by the contribution available after acquisition and delivery costs, the capacity they consume and the uncertainty that remains. A high-volume corridor may require a service the organization cannot yet staff; a smaller corridor may use existing capacity and collect sooner. Those alternatives belong in one capital discussion, with explicit reasons for pursuing, sequencing or declining each opportunity.

Design the whole conversion path

The original Doral presentation shows a path from attributed rosters and care gaps to outreach, visit preparation, care, follow-through and coding. It makes the dependency visible: a better targeting model cannot create value if the next team cannot act on its output.

My operating interpretation is to assign an owner and an observable completion event to each handoff. The management review should ask where eligible demand is being lost, what blocks progression and whether the proposed fix improves the journey rather than moving work elsewhere.

Make the investment test falsifiable

Before expanding a priority corridor, I would test whether the targeted population can be reached, accepted and served, and whether the resulting services produce an attractive contribution after delivery and acquisition costs. The comparator must be defined before a result is interpreted.

Modeled leakage, downstream lifetime-value estimates, contracted value, patient activation and collected revenue belong in different columns. Keeping them separate improves the investment decision: leadership can see which assumptions have advanced and which still require evidence.