Continuation Governance Intelligence
Show your work.
Cadence
Cadence™ — Continuation Governance Intelligence

When your board asks about continuation oversight, what will you show them?

~50%
Discontinue
GLP-1 patients within 12 months
$7,200
Per Member / Year
continuing without structured reassessment
0
Artifacts
most plans can show their board about continuation oversight
How It Works
You Give Us
A de-identified claims CSV.
Four required fields. No EHR. No integration. No software.
We Run
A 90-day governance cycle.
Structured review of flagged continuation members. Advisory-only. Human decisions always.
You Get
A governance artifact your board can see.
Configuration fingerprint. Measured RIR™. Immutable audit trail. The documented answer to "what is our continuation oversight?"
Cost: Starting at ~$6/member/month — as little as 1% of therapy cost

Your organization governs therapy initiation with rigor — prior authorization, step therapy, formulary placement. But once a patient is on therapy, the oversight stops. And right now, that continuation spend is flowing with no structured governance around it.

"Cadence does not find problems. It makes continuation visible. The shape it reveals is governance-ready — not because it accuses, but because it documents."

Cadence is the first structured, advisory-only governance layer for high-cost chronic therapy continuation — it makes the oversight gap visible, measurable, and auditable before your board asks why it doesn't exist.

Claims Analytics
Population-level spend visibility and trend identification
SEES the population
T H E   G A P
No structured continuation governance exists here
CADENCE LIVES HERE
Utilization Management
Intervention authority — PA, step therapy, UM referral
ACTS on individuals

What Cadence Produces

A Governance Artifact

Documented configuration fingerprint, measured RIR™ (Reviewer Influence Rate), immutable audit trail. The artifact your board needs — that nothing else produces.

A Directional Signal

$864K governance signal on a 2,500-member pilot cohort. Not a savings projection — a documented shape of continuation that has economic implications.

Documented Neutrality

40% of reviewed cases confirmed appropriate continuation. The governance cadence doesn't force change — it finds the truth and documents it.

Why now: CMS's BALANCE Model launches GLP-1 coverage for Medicare and Medicaid mid-2026. Millions of new continuation members entering the system. The governance gap is about to get dramatically wider — and your board will ask what you're doing about it.

"We do not sell savings. We sell the ability to show your work."
Governance Readiness Score™

Where does your organization stand?

12 questions. Five minutes. No data required, no commitment. Get your Governance Readiness Score and see exactly where the gaps are.

The Problem

Continuation is a lifecycle phenomenon, not a prescribing event.

Once a patient is initiated on a GLP-1, a biologic, or any high-cost chronic agent, the structural expectation is indefinite continuation. Discontinuation requires an event. Continuation requires nothing. That imbalance is the blind spot.

"What was once episodic oversight must evolve into routine oversight. This evolution is not optional."

The Three-Condition Diagnostic

The blind spot exists because three conditions are simultaneously true:

Condition 1
No universal reassessment interval

Unlike lab monitoring or PA renewal, continuation itself has no consensus interval for structured review. A patient may continue for years without a governance touchpoint beyond the initial authorization.

Condition 2
Governance signals are dispersed across systems

Claims show utilization. Labs show response. Notes show rationale. Pharmacy data shows fill patterns. No single system pulls these together into a structured reassessment prompt. The intelligence exists — it's just scattered across silos.

Condition 3
Escalation is over-relied upon as the primary governance lever

Step therapy, PA renewal, UM referral — these are eligibility tools repurposed for continuation governance. Binary, adversarial, friction-generating. They were never designed for nuanced, advisory, cadence-based reassessment.

Continuation Inertia

Patients stay on therapy not because someone decided they should — but because nobody asked. That's continuation inertia. It's not fraud. Not waste. Not abuse. It's what happens when a system heavily governs initiation and then looks away.

Inertia is not pejorative. The reference pilot showed 40% of reviewed cases resulted in continued therapy — appropriate continuation, confirmed by a human reviewer. Inertia becomes a problem only when it's invisible, undocumented, and unexamined.

"Visible inertia is governable. Invisible inertia is not."

So the question becomes: how do you make continuation visible without triggering the compliance machinery that comes with calling it fraud or waste?

The Positioning

Cadence tells the governance story, never the fraud story.

When a payer identifies fraud, waste, or abuse, they're compelled to act — and that compulsion triggers legal exposure and political fallout. Cadence breaks that bind. It doesn't look for fraud. It looks for the absence of structured reassessment.

"The shape it reveals is governance-ready — not because it accuses, but because it documents."

Three Properties of the Shape

Defensible without being adversarial

When a board member asks "what is your continuation oversight posture?" the plan has a documented answer. Not "we found problems" — but "here is our structured cadence and here is the governance signal it produces."

Optionality without obligation

If RIR™ shows 60% trajectory influence, that is information, not a compliance trigger. The organization can use it to inform strategy without the legal and political machinery that activates when something is labeled fraud or waste.

Documented neutrality

The 40% Continue rate is the proof. Four in ten flagged cases, upon structured review, showed continuation was clinically appropriate. That documented neutrality — the evidence that governance was exercised and found nothing to change — is the value.

"Neutrality is the power. The 40% Continue rate is the proof."

The Seven Non-Negotiables

These constraints are the trust architecture. They make deployment possible where every other approach gets killed in committee.

Governance Architecture

The Seven-Step Governance Loop

One complete cycle = one governance cadence. Repeats every 90 days. Each cycle compounds governance value.

↻ Cycle repeats every 90 days — each cycle compounds governance value
Advisory-Only

Step 4 produces recommendations, never denials. Humans always decide.

Auditable

Every action in every step is logged in an immutable audit trail.

Configurable

Triggers, thresholds, queue priority — the plan owns the governance logic.

The Signal

What Cadence Measures

Four governance metrics and one entry diagnostic. Here's what they are and what the pilot found.

RIR™ Reviewer Influence Rate
Formula
(Adjust + Taper + Switch) ÷ Completed Reviews × 100
Pilot Result: 60%

The first governance metric designed to measure whether structured reassessment correlates with clinical trajectory change. Non-causal by design. The 40% Continue rate confirms neutrality.

GPR™ Governance Persistence Rate

Did the trajectory change stick into the next cycle? Requires two cycles. Target: ≥60%.

GSV Governance Signal Value

Directional economic signal. Pilot: $864K. Never a savings projection.

The Governance Signal
2,500
members
625
flagged
575
reviewed
345
influenced
$864K
governance signal

Starting at ~$6/member/month — governance at as little as 1% of therapy cost. The $864K is TAF-weighted by outcome type (Adjust, Taper, Switch). Not a savings guarantee — a measured, directional signal.

Reference Pilot Results

Three converging evidence streams: direct observation across ~50,000 members, published literature, and this operational pilot.

View full pilot data
2,500
Members
in cohort
625
Flagged
25% of cohort
575
Reviewed
92% completion
20m
Median
review time

Outcome Distribution

Continue 40%
Adjust 25%
Taper 20%
Switch 15%

Stratified RIR™

Duration-Triggered (n=391)
65%

Longer-duration cases produce stronger governance signal

Dose-Triggered (n=184)
49%

Dose flags produce meaningful but lower signal

Weighted blend: (391×0.65 + 184×0.49) ÷ 575 = 60.0% — reconciles to overall RIR™ ✓

Governance Signal Value

$864K

Directional economic signal from 575 completed reviews

Sensitivity range: $434K (at 30% RIR™) — $1.08M (at 75% RIR™)  |  ATC $7,242  |  TAFs: Adjust 0.25, Taper 0.50, Switch 0.30

"RIR™ measures whether structured reassessment correlates with trajectory change. It never claims causation."
Self-Assessment

Where is your organization?

The Cadence Maturity Model. GRS™ maps your score to these levels.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Most large payers will self-assess at Level 2 or Level 3. Level 2 is understandable — analytics without action is a known limitation. Level 3 is uncomfortable — because it reveals that escalation, the tool you rely on most, was never designed for continuation governance.

That discomfort is where the conversation begins.

Interactive Intelligence

RIR™ Laboratory

Adjust the variables. The math updates in real time. See how governance signal works.

Your Cohort Size

Set your population size. The numbers flow through: cohort → 25% flagging → 92% completion → review base for outcomes.

Cohort size2,500
625
Flagged (25%)
575
Reviewed (92%)

Adjust the Outcome Distribution

Drag the sliders to model different scenarios. The formula updates in real time.

Continue40%
Adjust25%
Taper20%
Switch15%
40%
25%
20%
15%
RIR™ = (Adjust + Taper + Switch) ÷ Completed Reviews × 100
(144 + 115 + 86) ÷ 575 × 100
RIR™ = 60.0%
Continue Rate (Neutrality Check)
40.0%

≥35% indicates the system is not engineered to force change

Complement: RIR™ + Continue Rate = 100.0% always — mathematical certainty by definition.

✓ Neutrality confirmed. Continue rate of 40% demonstrates the governance cadence is not engineered to maximize trajectory change. The system identifies both cases that should change and cases that should not.

GSV at This RIR™

Governance Signal Value
$863,971

= (144 × $7,242 × 0.25) + (115 × $7,242 × 0.50) + (86 × $7,242 × 0.30)

Directional governance signal, not a savings projection. ATC = $7,242.

"The strongest version of this product is the most honest version of this product."
Your Numbers

Economics Translator

Input your population size and therapy cost. See what governance looks like in your context.

Your cohort size5,000
Average annual therapy cost ($)$7,200
Estimated influence rate (RIR™)60%
Pilot investment ($)$95,000
$1.72M
Governance Signal Value
Directional, non-causal
$6.33
Governance PMPM
Per member per month
1.1%
% of Therapy Cost
Devoted to governance
Show the math behind these numbers

GSV Calculation:

Cohort 5,000 → 25% flagged = 1,250 → 92% reviewed = 1,150 → 60% influenced = 690
Influenced split: Adjust (42%) + Taper (33%) + Switch (25%)
GSV = (Adjust × ATC × 0.25) + (Taper × ATC × 0.50) + (Switch × ATC × 0.30)
TAFs: Adjust 0.25 = avg dose modification. Taper 0.50 = planned step-down. Switch 0.30 = avg cost differential.

PMPM Calculation:

Pilot investment ÷ cohort size ÷ 3 months = governance cost per member per month

% of Therapy Cost:

PMPM ÷ (ATC ÷ 12 months) × 100 = what % of monthly therapy cost goes to governance

Cost of Governance Absence

The real question isn't "what will Cadence save me?" — it's "what am I exposed to without structured governance?"

Without Cadence
$57,450

Estimated manual review equivalent: 1,250 flagged × 92% reviewed = 1,150 × 20 min = 383 hrs × $150/hr

Produces no framework, no RIR™, no configuration fingerprint, and no immutable audit trail.

With Cadence
$95,000

Includes framework, triggers, audit trail, configuration fingerprint, RIR™ benchmark, and governance summary.

Plus a directional GSV of $1.72M

"We do not sell savings. We sell the ability to show your work."
The PMPM model is the starting point — not the only model. Multi-cycle programs, multi-category deployments, and governance signal participation arrangements are available.
Discuss options →
For BALANCE Participants

You're about to manage a population you've never had.

CMS's BALANCE Model launches GLP-1 coverage in Medicaid (May 2026) and Medicare Part D (January 2027). A bridge demonstration begins July 2026 at $50/month copay. Millions of new continuation members are entering the system.

Why BALANCE Accelerates Cadence

Every participating agency starts from zero on GLP-1 continuation governance. No baseline RIR™. No documented cadence. No artifact. That's not a weakness — it's exactly the condition Cadence was designed for.

BALANCE also requires manufacturers to provide lifestyle support programs, which creates an expectation of structured monitoring — but no governance layer exists to connect that monitoring to oversight. Meanwhile, the plans absorbing this new spend will face immediate board-level pressure to demonstrate stewardship. "We covered them because CMS told us to" is not a governance narrative.

And the persistence problem scales with access. Half discontinue. Two-thirds regain the weight. More coverage without governance means more invisible inertia.

Cadence for BALANCE Entrants

Pre-configured GLP-1 trigger sets

Duration, dose escalation, lab gaps, and outcome absence — calibrated for GLP-1 continuation patterns.

BALANCE-aligned cadence

Governance cycle designed to complement the mandatory lifestyle support requirements.

Medicaid-structured pricing

Pilot pricing designed for state Medicaid budgets and Part D economics.

Readiness checklist

Before your GLP-1 population arrives: identify your data extract source, designate 1–3 clinical reviewers, brief your CMO on advisory-only architecture, confirm de-identification protocol, and set a pilot start date aligned with your BALANCE enrollment timeline.

Category-Agnostic Architecture

Beyond GLP-1

Cadence is governance infrastructure, not a GLP-1 tool. The same framework applies to any high-cost chronic category where continuation is the default and structured reassessment is absent. Each category gets adapted triggers — the governance architecture stays the same.

Biologic Immunologics

TNF, JAK, IL-17/IL-23 inhibitors. $40K–$80K/year per member. Patients often continue for years after achieving remission with no structured governance checkpoint. Biosimilar availability creates trajectory change opportunities that go unexercised without a cadence.

Trigger adaptations: biosimilar availability signal, disease activity absence, duration threshold calibration for biologic-specific timelines.

Oncology Maintenance

Maintenance immunotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors. Indefinite continuation after initial response is standard of care — but "indefinite" without reassessment means no documented governance of whether maintenance is still clinically indicated.

Trigger adaptations: progression-free interval tracking, imaging absence signal, treatment-free interval protocols.

Specialty Behavioral Health

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics, adult ADHD stimulants, buprenorphine maintenance. Some of the longest continuation durations in pharmacy — patients on LAIs for decades without a structured governance touchpoint beyond medication refill.

Trigger adaptations: adherence gap detection, dosing stability assessment, cross-class polypharmacy signals.

Gene Therapy Follow-On

Post-administration monitoring for CAR-T, gene replacement, and cell therapy. These are one-time treatments costing $500K–$3M with no standardized governance of long-term follow-on monitoring — a new category of continuation that didn't exist five years ago.

Trigger adaptations: monitoring interval governance, biomarker surveillance signals, long-term efficacy checkpoint cadence.

"Plans deploying Cadence for GLP-1 are building governance infrastructure that scales across their highest-cost continuation populations."
Get Started

Run a Pilot

A defined cohort. A data extract. One governance cycle. The framework scales from a 2,500-member pilot to an enterprise-wide deployment — the architecture is the same at any size.

ParameterSpecification
Duration90-day governance cycle (repeatable)
CohortMinimum 2,500 members. No upper limit — framework scales to enterprise populations.
Data RequiredDe-identified claims CSV: 4 required fields + 8 optional
Reviewers1–3 qualified clinical reviewers
Review Burden~20 min/case. ~2.3 hrs/day (1 reviewer) or ~1.2 hrs/day (2 reviewers)
InvestmentStarting at ~$6 PMPM over the governance cycle (as little as 1% of therapy cost). Scales with cohort size.
TechnologyNone. No EHR integration. No software installation. CSV in, governance artifact out.
DeliverablesConfiguration fingerprint, governance summary, RIR™ benchmark, immutable audit trail, transparency report

Data Extract: What You Need

FieldRequiredFormatPurpose
member_idYesStringDe-identified unique identifier
drugYesStringTherapy name or NDC
doseYesStringCurrent dose with units
therapy_startYesYYYY-MM-DDTherapy initiation date
last_reviewOptionalYYYY-MM-DDEnables NORV6 trigger
last_labOptionalYYYY-MM-DDEnables LABPEND trigger
dose_escalatedOptionalY/NEnables DOSEUP trigger
comorbidity_changeOptionalY/NEnables COMCHG trigger
weight_baseline / weight_currentOptionalNumeric (kg)Clinical delta + NOOUT trigger
a1c_baseline / a1c_currentOptionalNumericClinical delta + NOOUT trigger
"1% of therapy cost for structured governance. That is the investment. The artifact is the return."

A defined cohort. A data extract. One cycle.

The governance artifact doesn't exist until someone builds it. Whether that's 2,500 members or 250,000 — the architecture is the same and it starts with a single governance cycle.

Request Pilot Briefing →

Opens your email client with a pre-formatted message to joe@cadencegovernance.com

Questions & Answers

Frequently Asked Questions

Real questions. Direct answers.


RIR™
60.0%