โ INTERNAL โ founders only. This is your pitch talk-track. Do NOT send it to investors; the plain investor.rev.health pages are what they see.
Founder pitch cheat sheet
How to walk an investor from where we're going back through every decision that earns it. Lead with the destination, then take the steps in order. Each step: what to say, the decision behind it, the why, the rebuttal if they push, and the page that proves it.
0 ยท Open with where we're going
"We're building the first AI-native EMR + RCM for primary care. One $4M seed funds the whole thing to exit โ no Series A, no Series B โ and it returns the fund at the conservative case."
$50.9Mexit ARR ยท 346 practices / 866 providers
78%gross margin ยท ~$33.1M run-rate EBITDA
15.3รyour money at the 6ร downside floor
25.4ร (~$101.8M)at the 10ร base case โ on a $4M seed
The golden thread (say it in this order): destination โ the wedge โ the product โ two revenue engines โ the margin โ how we grow โ why it's self-funded โ why the incumbents can't follow โ the market โ the exit โ the ask.
Why open here: investors decide in the first two minutes. Anchor on the return, then spend the rest of the meeting earning it. Everything below is you earning it.
1The wedge โ primary care, on purpose
- Say
- "We start where the work is most repeatable: primary care. Established-patient visits โ 99213 and 99214 โ are ~84% of the volume, and that's a narrow, automatable coding distribution."
- Decision
- PCP-first beachhead โ not all specialties on day one.
- Why
- A narrow, routine visit mix is exactly what makes a 78% gross margin and ~98.5% first-pass clean claims credible โ and it's a focused, winnable first market.
- If pushed
- "Why not bigger?" โ "Specialty expansion is upside we haven't modeled. The entire plan closes on PCP alone."
2The product โ AI-native end to end, not bolted on
- Say
- "The schedule is solved to the minute, eligibility fires at booking, the note is written by an ambient scribe and coded in the room, and denials are prevented before the patient is even seen."
- Decision
- One integrated record with AI in the core โ not modules stitched together with AI bolted on the side.
- Why
- Shifting the work left โ ~98.5% first-pass clean claims โ cost-to-serve toward ~1.3% of collections, vs a labor-heavy billing shop.
- If pushed
- "Everyone says AI." โ "Theirs is a rules engine with AI stapled on; ours generates the code from the encounter. Let me show you the live walk-through."
3The revenue โ two engines per provider
- Say
- "Every provider pays us twice: $595 a month for the platform, plus 4.9% of what we collect for them โ and 90% take the RCM."
- Decision
- Bundle SaaS + a variable RCM fee. We never put a fixed price on a variable cost.
- Why
- ~$59K revenue/provider/yr, ~$147K per practice โ and real pricing power: we can move to $995 / 6.9% later, which is pure upside not in the base case.
- If pushed
- "Is an RCM % sustainable?" โ "It's below market and it scales with the value we create. The more we collect for them, the more they want it."
4The margin โ 78%, and earned
- Say
- "That gives us a 78% gross margin โ with full cloud and AI cost in COGS, not labor-only math."
- Decision
- Fold real cloud/AI COGS into cost-to-serve and book 78% (the modeled figure at exit โ the same number everywhere).
- Why
- athenahealth, the category benchmark, runs ~54% as a labor-heavy multi-specialty shop. AI-native + PCP-first is structurally higher.
- If pushed
- "78% is high for healthcare." โ "It's a primary-care, at-scale figure off a narrow visit mix โ and it's lower than pure SaaS because we earn the RCM%. The margin-defense page walks the ramp."
5The growth โ acquire networks, not one doctor at a time
- Say
- "We don't sell one physician at a time. 85% of our growth is captive โ Empower feeds us acquired networks and we onboard them at ~$0 CAC; our lean external sales team only has to win the ~15% we don't already own."
- Decision
- Captive-acquisition GTM, with only ~15% from external sales reps.
- Why
- A predictable, compounding ramp to 346 practices / 866 providers โ not a leaky one-by-one sales funnel.
- If pushed
- "Acquisition is capital-intensive." โ "It's structured so the seed funds it โ and cash never goes negative in the model."
6The structure โ airtight, and self-funded to exit
- Say
- "This one $4M seed funds the entire plan to exit. No Series A, no Series B. Cash never goes negative."
- Decision
- Self-fund to exit, with conservative reality baked in: 5% churn, 40-day A/R, real taxes (NOL + Texas franchise), bottom-up hiring.
- Why
- No future dilution โ the seed owns the outcome. The downside is already in the numbers, not hand-waved away.
- If pushed
- "Really no more rounds?" โ "Trough cash is +$911K on the base case. We'd raise more only to go faster, never to survive โ and you can stress it yourself in the playground."
7The moat โ the incumbents have a ceiling
- Say
- "Legacy systems are labor-heavy rules engines. eClinicalWorks paid $150M+ to the DOJ; their AI failed live in our diligence; and their all-in cost to a practice is higher than ours."
- Decision
- Compete on structural margin and true AI โ not on a feature checklist.
- Why
- They can't reach our cost-to-serve without rebuilding on AI, and their installed base is the anchor that stops them.
- If pushed
- "Incumbents are entrenched." โ "Entrenched on old economics. We're cheaper all-in and we keep more of every dollar."
Reminder: add ?realnames only when it's appropriate โ the default investor view is anonymized.
8The market โ we need a sliver
- Say
- "There are ~280K primary-care physicians in ~136K groups in the U.S. We need a sliver of it."
- Decision
- Size the market on PCPs and groups โ not a hand-wavy trillion-dollar healthcare number.
- Why
- 346 practices / 866 providers is a rounding error of the TAM โ the plan does not depend on heroic penetration.
9The exit โ back to where we started
- Say
- "A 78%-margin, AI-native asset growing this fast trades at a premium. Comps put 6ร ARR as conservative and 8โ10ร as earned."
- Decision
- Headline the high case, defend the low one.
- Why
- 6ร โ 15.3ร your money; 10ร โ 25.4ร โ about $101.8M back on a $4M seed.
Close with the ask
"$4M seed. Self-funded to a $50.9M-ARR exit, 2028 GA after ONC certification. One check, one outcome โ fund-returning even at the conservative case. I'd love to have you in."
Numbers to never get wrong
- Raise: $4M seed ยท no Series A/B ยท trough cash +$911K
- Exit: 346 practices / 866 providers / $50.9M ARR
- Margin: 78% GM ยท ~65% / ~$33.1M run-rate EBITDA
- Pricing: $595/mo + 4.9% RCM (90% attach)
- Per provider: ~$59K/yr ยท ~$147K/practice
- Ops: ~98.5% first-pass clean ยท cost-to-serve ~1.3%
- Returns: 6ร โ 15.3ร ยท 10ร โ 25.4ร (~$101.8M)
- GTM: 85% captive / 15% sales ยท 5% churn ยท 40-day A/R
- Market: ~280K PCPs / ~136K groups
- Pricing power (upside): $995 / 6.9% โ not in base case
REV.health โ internal founder reference ยท keep numbers in sync with the model (every figure here matches the proforma + the live pages). 2026-06-24