FOUR-STAKEHOLDER VALUE MATRIX
Discussion hypotheses and expected benefits, not measured outcomes.

INSURANCE COMPANIES
Pain: Eligibility uncertainty, evidence gaps, inconsistent adjudication, suspected anomalies and limited cost oversight.
Benefit: Expected: clearer coverage checks, explainable exceptions, tariff comparison and accountable human decisions; no proven savings or fraud detection claim.
Required decision: Nominate decision authority, required evidence, escalation thresholds and cost oversight owners.
Likely objection: Will flags cause false accusations or replace our adjudicators?
Evidence needed: Agreed synthetic edge cases, cited rule sources, false-positive review, reasoned decisions, tenant-denial tests and reconciled simulated totals.

HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS
Pain: Uncertain eligibility, authorization delays, rejected claims, disputed receivables and fragmented insurer handoffs.
Benefit: Expected: earlier confirmation, clearer evidence/rejection follow-up and receivable status visibility. Settlement is simulated, not a collection guarantee.
Required decision: Name front-desk, billing and rejection owners; agree insurer contracts/tariffs and authorization escalation.
Likely objection: Will this add work or duplicate our hospital system?
Evidence needed: Walk through one front-desk-to-billing case, missing evidence and rejection correction; map current systems and measure agreed handoff times. Connected authorization is not meeting-ready.

HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
Pain: Incomplete encounter documentation, unclear billable evidence, unclean claims and missing status feedback.
Benefit: Expected: more consistent encounter/item documentation, evidence checklists and visible claim status; no promised denial reduction or clinical diagnosis.
Required decision: Agree documentation/coding responsibilities, service subset, clinical review boundaries and training owner.
Likely objection: Will clinicians face extra data entry or automated medical judgments?
Evidence needed: Clinician-reviewed synthetic encounter/item list, required-document cases, coding validation and status read-back. Hospital administration and clinical providers share the existing provider demo role, not new permissions.

INSURANCE BROKERS
Pain: Member enrollment handoffs, policy-status uncertainty, renewal tracking and disconnected service coordination.
Benefit: Expected: authorized client portfolio, insurer-directed applications/renewals and service requests. Enrollment remains insurer-controlled; no public live enrollment.
Required decision: Agree represented-client permissions, insurer underwriting handoff, renewal/service owners and minimum necessary fields.
Likely objection: Can brokers see medical claims, decide coverage or move money?
Evidence needed: Portfolio/application status examples, scope-denial checks and insurer acceptance path. Brokers cannot view claim files, adjudicate or pay; the traced member is not automatically a broker client.

PATIENTS / POLICYHOLDERS
Pain: Unclear cover, premium and claim status spread across insurer, broker and hospital.
Benefit: Expected: one place to see own authorised policy, eligibility and claim status, and a safe handoff to the chosen insurer’s own payment site.
Required decision: Which insurer data may be shown, under what consent, and how dependants are handled.
Likely objection: Is Health Bridge taking my money or my medical data?
Evidence needed: Premiums go only to the insurer’s own gateway; status shows pending until insurer confirmation; own-record isolation tests.

Health Bridge Uganda · Stakeholder discovery
ONE ATTENDEE · COMPLETE LOCALLY · No patient identifiers, credentials or confidential records. No app intake.

ATTENDEE CONTEXT
Role [ ] Insurer [ ] Hospital administrator [ ] Healthcare provider [ ] Broker. Institution (optional, consented): [________]. Responsibility: [________].

CURRENT SYSTEMS AND PROCESS
Policy/eligibility system: [________]. Hospital/clinical/billing system: [________]. Broker/renewal tools: [________]. Current handoffs / manual work: [________].

PAIN AND BASELINE
Top three pains and affected steps: 1 [________] 2 [________] 3 [________]. Current turnaround / rejection causes / follow-up effort (approximate, non-identifying): [________].

APPROXIMATE VOLUMES — OPTIONAL
Period [________]. Members / applications [________]. Encounters / claims [________]. Rejections / renewals / service requests [________]. Estimates only; no records or claim identifiers.

INTEGRATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDS
Systems/interfaces available or unknown: [________]. Required data fields and permitted exchanges: [________]. Coding/tariff sources: [________]. Evidence needed before evaluation: [________].

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING CONSTRAINTS
Eligibility / evidence / decisions / rejection / renewal owners (roles): [________]. Support hours, downtime/manual fallback, staffing and training constraints: [________].

PRIVACY, COMPLIANCE AND ACCESS
Legal/privacy review owner (role): [________]. Consent/legal basis, retention, storage-location or access constraints to validate: [________]. Independent reviews required: [________]. No regulatory clearance assumed.

PILOT WILLINGNESS — NO COMMITMENT
[ ] Interested in discussion [ ] Need evidence [ ] Not now. Possible synthetic scope: [________]. Success measures to agree: [________]. Key blockers: [________]. Permission for agreed follow-up: [ ] Yes [ ] No.

Health Bridge Uganda · Decision & next steps
COMPLETE LOCALLY WITH CONSENT · Discussion record, not a contract, enrollment or launch authorization.

DISCUSSION OUTCOME
[ ] Explore synthetic evaluation [ ] Revise scope [ ] Request evidence [ ] Defer. Rationale / open concerns: [________________________________].

PROPOSED SPONSOR AND INSTITUTIONS — CONFIRM WILLINGNESS
Named sponsor: [________________]. Institution / role: [________________]. Proposed pilot institution(s): [________________]. Confirmed willing? [ ] Yes [ ] Not yet. No participation is assumed.

REQUIREMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Named requirements owner: [________________]. Joint pilot owner, if agreed: [________________]. Insurer decision / hospital billing / provider documentation / broker coordination leads: [________________].

SCOPE AND REQUIREMENTS TO AGREE
Synthetic service subset / cases: [________________]. Existing system mapping / integration questions: [________________]. Acceptance measures and evidence: [________________]. Exclusions and dependencies: [________________].

FOLLOW-UP MEETING — SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT
Proposed date/time: [________________]. Participants: [________________]. Agenda: [________________]. Scheduling owner: [________________]. Confirmation pending? [ ] Yes [ ] No.

ACTIONS AND EVIDENCE OWNERS
Action 1 / owner / target review: [________________]. Action 2 / owner / target review: [________________]. Privacy/security/legal requirements owner: [________________].

COMMERCIAL AND APPROVAL BOUNDARY
Budget owner: [________________]. Budget: [uncommitted / estimate requested]. Written scope/quotation and institutional authorization needed. Illustrative 60–90 day evaluation is not a delivery promise. No real patient data, actual payments or production claims.

LOCAL RECORD AND CONSENT
Recorded by (consented): [________________]. Date: [________________]. Follow-up permission [ ] Yes [ ] No. Store through your agreed institutional process; Health Bridge does not submit or save this sheet. Do not add patient data, credentials or confidential records.