SELECTED WORK / 01 / Atlantic Dialysis Management Services
I connected institutional relationships, payer coordination and admissions with the capacity of a 13-facility kidney-care network.
Vice President, Growth & Population Health · 2024–2025
THE CONSTRAINT
The network faced two linked risks: dependence on a narrow referral base and failure to convert appropriate demand into timely treatment. I treated diversification and admission reliability as one operating problem. Expanding relationships without resolving the receiving pathway would increase administrative work; adding capacity without dependable demand would increase fixed-cost exposure.
01 / BROADEN ACCESS
Expanded access has to be understood alongside concentration and referral quality. The source reports these changes together without assigning a controlled causal effect.
REPORTED REFERRAL CONCENTRATION
The concentration denominator and measurement dates are not supplied. No intermediate observations are invented.
02 / MAKE THE HANDOFF EXECUTABLE
Documentation, payer coordination, clinical acceptance, and facility readiness entered the same operating cadence.
Reported changes across the operating system. Acceptance improvement is not an acceptance rate. No numeric lift is attributed to an individual handoff.
03 / CONNECT GROWTH TO TREATMENT
The operating record connects the scale of the network, time to treatment, and annualized referral economics.
Facility markers show count only, not geography or utilization. Revenue is self-reported annualized referral economics, not separately audited incremental revenue. The time change is not a final treatment duration.
04 / EXTEND THE OPERATING PERIMETER
The work extended beyond referral development into testing-access collaboration and the operating response to a payment transition already described in the source.
REPORTED COLLABORATION
Patients in the testing-access scope for kidneyintelX.dkd
REPORTED READINESS WORK
Sourcing, billing, and patient access coordinated around the 2025 oral-only phosphate-binder payment transition.
Testing access is not a count of completed tests or a measured clinical benefit. No quantified outcome is supplied for the readiness work.
A reconstructed executive exhibit of the handoffs behind the operating record—not an original employer dashboard.
WHAT I BUILT
Expanded 40+ physician relationships and 15+ institutional and community channels.
Made documentation readiness, payer coordination, clinical acceptance, and facility capacity part of the same operating cadence.
Originated a Renalytix / NYKHM collaboration to expand kidneyintelX.dkd testing access to 2,000+ patients.
Coordinated network readiness for the 2025 oral-only phosphate-binder payment transition across sourcing, billing, and patient access.
REPORTED OPERATING OUTCOMES
STRATEGIC INTERPRETATION / AZIS R. DABAS
The strategic asset is the ability to convert a trusted institutional relationship into reliable patient access across a local network. Facility count and referral volume only tell part of that story.
I read this case at the level of the referral corridor: a sending institution, a defined patient need, an accepting facility and a workable route into care. That is a more useful unit for expansion than a geography with a large population or a list of prominent hospital names.
The question is whether the network can absorb the next cohort without making access less reliable. A corridor that fits payer participation, geography and staffed capacity can be more valuable than a larger source of demand that repeatedly fails at admission.
My operating record connects institutional relationships with intake redesign, payer coordination and the 13-facility network. The implication for expansion is specific: a referral commitment creates a capacity obligation at an accepting facility. Commercial and clinical operations therefore need a common view of which patients can be served, where and on what timetable.
I would compare referral sources by completed starts, time to treatment, acceptance and capacity fit. That makes it possible to distinguish a weak relationship from a strong relationship feeding a blocked pathway. The response to those two problems is different.
Before funding another layer of acquisition, I would establish whether the constraint is demand, documentation, payer clearance, coordination or staffed treatment availability. Each calls for a different owner and use of capital.
The order matters. Improving referral generation before removing an admission bottleneck can increase workload without increasing access. Expanding capacity before establishing a reliable source of appropriate demand can create underused fixed cost. A corridor earns expansion when both sides work together.
My expansion test would combine a local demand thesis with a capacity plan, a reimbursement view and an operating owner. The downside case asks what happens if conversion takes longer, staffing costs rise, or one institutional source becomes less productive.
The reported annualized referral-revenue engine is a scale indicator. It is not a substitute for a corridor-level contribution analysis, and it does not establish the incremental financial effect of any single intervention. The next investment decision needs that additional operating and financial reconciliation.
This analysis explains the strategic implications of the operating record. Forward-looking decision tests describe how I would evaluate a mandate today.
Read the wider strategic perspectiveRevenue is the annualized referral-revenue engine described in the résumé, not a separately audited incremental-revenue measure. The network model is illustrative; intermediate slider values are not historical observations.
Read the source résuméContinue the analysis
Related executive analysis examines the operating choices raised by this case. These essays extend the argument; they are not independent validation of the reported results.
Test the economic assumptions in the decision labs →FROM THE OPERATING RECORD TO THE WIDER SYSTEM