Every Health Tech Vendor Needs a Point of View on Outcome-Based Pricing
Health plan buyers are going to ask. Boards already are. Whether you adopt it, adapt it, or explain why your current model is better, here's the framework for getting the conversation right.
Upward Growth provides health tech leaders with the playbooks and proof to transform complex markets into real growth. Each week, we deliver clear, practical strategies on positioning, messaging, and growth, so leaders can close enterprise deals and build repeatable momentum.
🤝 Work with Ryan on payor growth strategy: Contact me
🟦 Connect with the author, Ryan Peterson, on LinkedIn.
📰 Newsletter sponsorships are available: Learn More
Today’s Upward Growth newsletter is sponsored by Ours Privacy
As digital health companies scale, performance marketing gets more complex, and so do privacy expectations. What many teams don’t realize is that common website analytics and advertising tools can unintentionally capture sensitive information, whether you’re running patient-facing campaigns or operating a B2B site with educational health information.
Ours Privacy helps healthcare organizations use platforms like Google and Meta responsibly by filtering, redacting, or anonymizing sensitive data before it’s shared with third parties with our HIPAA-compliant customer data platform. Growth teams gain the performance insights they need, while engineering and compliance teams gain confidence in how data is handled.
Upward Growth readers can request a complimentary healthcare website compliance scan to better understand potential compliance gaps.
Interested in sponsoring Upward Growth? Learn more
If you sell to health plans and you haven’t been asked about outcome-based pricing yet, you will be soon. It’s showing up in RFP questions like, “Describe your organization’s approach to outcome-aligned pricing structures.” It’s coming from board members who forward articles and ask pointed questions. And it’s coming from buyers who watched an AI-native competitor pitch “we only get paid when you see results” and now want to know why your pricing doesn’t work the same way.
The vendors who struggle with this question are those who don't (yet) have an answer, and each audience reads that silence differently. The buyer hears a vendor who hasn't kept up. The board member hears a team that isn't paying attention to where the market is moving. The investor hears a pricing model that might not be defensible if the pressure keeps building.
The problem is that most vendors treat this as one question. It isn’t. A CFO asking about outcome-based pricing wants a different answer than a board member asking the same question. A buyer matching a competitor’s offer needs a different response than a buyer whose procurement team dropped it into a refreshed RFP template. Each version of the question has a different motivation behind it, and each one calls for a different conversation.
This article is a framework for having that conversation, whether you're considering a shift to outcome-based pricing, already experimenting with it, or confident your current model is right and need to defend it in a room where someone just asked why you're not doing what the other vendor offered. The vendors who get this right are the ones who understand outcome-based pricing well enough to speak to it clearly, whether they adopt it or not.
Why Health Plan Conversations Are Starting to Include Pricing Model Questions
The outcomes-based pricing question is accelerating because three forces are converging, each applying a different kind of pressure on vendors.
Health plan margins are at their lowest in two decades. PwC’s 2026 payer outlook found medical cost trends running at 8.5% across commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid lines. Plans that were comfortably profitable two years ago are now defending their operating models to their own boards. Every dollar of vendor spend is under scrutiny in a way it wasn’t before, and health plan CFOs who are restructuring budget categories to protect Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) are going to ask the natural question: Can we structure vendor deals so the vendor carries some of the risk if performance falls short?
Vendor consolidation is making every pricing conversation higher stakes. Plans are actively cutting vendor counts and moving toward fewer vendors with deeper integrations, not more point solutions with shallow ones. When procurement is looking for reasons to eliminate relationships rather than add them, the vendors who remain are those who can articulate their value in financial terms, and that the health plan can defend internally. Outcome-based language, even when the underlying pricing structure stays standard, is becoming part of how vendors differentiate themselves from those getting cut.
AI-native competitors are using outcome-based pricing as a sales wedge. This is the newest pressure and the most acute one for incumbents. AI companies entering the health plan market are leading with “we only get paid when you see results” as a positioning move against established vendors running on Per Member Per Month (PMPM) or flat-fee structures. (Whether their model holds up at scale is a separate question...) But what matters right now is that your buyers are hearing it, comparing it to your proposal, and asking why you can’t do the same.
To be clear, none of this means you need to change your pricing model. But you do need to understand the conversation well enough to participate in it confidently, whether you're defending your current structure, offering a hybrid, or going all in on outcome-based terms.
How Health Plans Actually Think About Outcome-Based Pricing
What 'outcome-based pricing' actually means to vendors and health plans
Most vendors and health plans know, in principle, that “outcome-based pricing” means different things to each of them. What they underestimate is how much those different definitions still shape the conversation, even when no one says so out loud.
For a vendor, outcome-based pricing means tying fees to results: pay us when you see improvement, pay us less when you don’t. For a health plan, “outcome-based” is a term they’ve been living inside for years. It means shared savings arrangements with ACOs, quality-linked bonuses for provider networks, Stars incentive structures, and risk corridors in delegated arrangements. These are formal, actuarially modeled, compliance-reviewed frameworks with specific infrastructure requirements and a long institutional history.
Both parties can define the difference when asked. But when a vendor says “pay us on outcomes,” each party often assumes the other is using their definition of the concept. The plan hears a vendor proposing something that sounds like a simplified ACO arrangement. The vendor thinks they’re describing a pricing tweak. And so neither surfaces the language gap, and the conversation proceeds on two different tracks.
The vendors who handle this well name both definitions early: “When we say outcome-based pricing, we mean [X]. We know that term carries a lot of history inside health plans, and we want to be clear about what we’re actually proposing.” That’s what distinguishes a vendor who knows the plan’s world from one who’s just read about the trend.
Why the buyer is asking, and what your answer actually needs to do
The reason a buyer raises outcome-based pricing shapes what kind of answer will actually land, and most vendors miss that because they treat every version of the question the same way.
When the question comes from the CFO, it’s about moving financial risk off the plan’s balance sheet. The CFO has seen the margin compression numbers and wants vendors to carry some of that exposure. This version of the conversation is fundamentally about risk-sharing mechanics, and it requires a response that engages with those mechanics directly.
When it comes from a buyer who just sat across from an AI-native competitor offering outcome-based terms, the motivation is competitive. They want to see if you’ll match. But the real question underneath is whether you can explain why your structure is the better fit for their situation, which is a harder conversation than simply matching the offer.
Sometimes the question appears in a refreshed RFP template with little context. The plan added the language but hasn’t built the internal infrastructure to evaluate outcome-based proposals, which means your response needs to educate, not just answer.
And occasionally the question is a real test! The plan believes in aligned incentives and wants to see which vendors can hold an intelligent conversation about pricing structure, measurement methodology, and shared accountability. Whether or not you’re changing your pricing, this is the version of the question where fluency matters most.
Why Outcome-Based Pricing Stalls Inside Health Plans
Once outcome-based pricing enters a vendor conversation, it moves through the plan's internal machinery. Four functions will weigh in before anything gets approved, and beneath them all sits a measurement problem that none of them have fully solved. Knowing what each stakeholder is actually asking, and understanding the attribution challenge they're all circling around, gives you a significant advantage over vendors who treat the plan as a single buyer.
Actuarial wants to know how your proposed model interacts with the value-based arrangements the plan already has in place with providers, and whether the financial exposure is quantifiable under their existing modeling frameworks. This team has had outcome-based conversations with provider partners who had more capital and more leverage than you, so they’re not learning on the fly.
Compliance is asking whether the payment structure creates incentive conflicts. If you get paid more when utilization drops, does that create pressure to restrict care? OIG safe harbor considerations apply to certain vendor payment structures, and any plan with a competent compliance team will surface this before contract review. If you haven’t thought through the answer, they’ll find it for you, and you won’t like the timing.
Finance wants to know how your outcome metric relates to the numbers they already track: MLR, Stars bonus revenue, and risk adjustment accuracy. If the outcome you’re proposing doesn’t map to a line on their internal dashboard, someone has to build new measurement infrastructure before they can even evaluate your model, and that slows approval in a way that has nothing to do with whether they like your product.
Procurement wants to know whether they have a contract template for this or whether legal has to draft something from scratch. Custom contract architecture adds months to the cycle, and that’s a legitimate operational constraint, not a negotiating tactic. Most vendors underestimate how much procurement complexity alone can kill a deal that every other function has already approved.
The Measurement Problem Underneath All Four Stakeholders
Each of those four functions is reacting to outcome-based pricing through its own lens, but they all share one underlying concern: if we tie payment to outcomes, how do we know which intervention caused the improvement? The attribution problem isn't an objection. Plans raise it because they haven't solved it across their own programs either. Multiple vendors, internal programs, and care teams touch the same member population. Claims data lags 60 to 90 days, Stars measurement years don't align with contract years, and risk adjustment settlements happen 18 or more months after the service year ends. When a vendor proposes outcome-based pricing, the plan's first internal question is: how do we prove your intervention caused the improvement, rather than our own outreach team's, or the care management vendor we already have a performance guarantee with?
The attribution problem isn’t an objection. Health plans raise it because they haven’t solved it across their own programs either.
Here’s how that plays out in a real conversation. A vendor pitches tying pricing to Stars improvement. The plan’s internal reaction: “How does that interact with the $15M performance guarantee we already have with our care management vendor targeting the same population? How do we isolate your contribution from theirs and from our own outreach program?” That’s a legitimate measurement problem plans have wrestled with for years, and vendors who engage it directly are in a fundamentally different conversation.
Demonstrating that you understand how plans evaluate pricing makes your message travel further through the stakeholder chain that has to approve it. That’s true whether you’re pitching outcome-based terms or explaining why your standard model is the better fit. As I've written before, the message has to survive being forwarded, and a pricing conversation that only makes sense when you're in the room is one you'll lose. And the first place that a forwarded message breaks down is when the outcomes you’re pitching don’t match the outcomes the plan is actually measured on.
Why the Outcomes You Pitch Aren’t the Outcomes Plans Measure
Here’s the translation problem that compounds everything above: most vendors pitch the outcomes they track internally, but health plans evaluate through the outcomes they get paid on. Those aren’t the same list, and the gap between them is where deals fall apart.
Vendors come in discussing engagement rates, app utilization, NPS, time saved, and reduction in utilization, while health plans score vendors against Stars rating movement, medical cost trend, risk adjustment accuracy (RAF improvement), member retention, and HEDIS measure closure. As plans consolidate vendors and move toward fewer, deeper partnerships, a vendor who speaks engagement metrics in a room evaluating the plan's performance is giving the plan’s CFO nothing to take to the budget review. When the CFO is the real gatekeeper on vendor spend, that gap kills deals regardless of how strong your clinical story is.
Whether you’re proposing outcome-based pricing, a performance guarantee, or defending PMPM, speaking the plan’s outcome language is the prerequisite. Here’s what that translation sounds like:
Instead of: “We’ll tie our pricing to engagement rates.”
Try: “We’ll tie a performance component to HEDIS gaps closed during measurement year, validated against your internal analytics.”
Instead of: “Pay us based on utilization reduction.”
Try: “We’ll structure a shared savings component tied to avoidable ED visits, measured against your baseline with a 12-month lookback using your claims data.”
Instead of: “Our outcome is improved medication adherence.”
Try: “We protect Stars bonus revenue by moving your Part D measures. Based on comparable plans, that translates to roughly $X PMPM in quality bonus protection.”
If your outcome isn’t on the plan’s CFO or CMO performance dashboard, you’re proposing something they have no reason to measure, defend, or approve. Once you’re speaking their language, the pricing model conversation gets considerably easier, regardless of which direction you go.
When Outcome-Based Pricing Works, When It Doesn’t, and What to Say
So let’s get practical with this framework. You now understand how plans think about outcome-based pricing, who inside the plan weighs in, and why the outcomes you pitch need to match the outcomes they measure. The question is what to actually do with all of that: when outcome-based pricing makes sense for your solution, when it doesn't, and what to say in either case.
When outcome-based pricing can work. Five conditions generally need to line up. Your solution targets a measurable, financially material outcome that the plan already tracks. Your intervention is discrete enough that attribution is defensible. The measurement timeline aligns with contract cycles, or you can structure interim milestones. You can fund operations on a base fee while performance accrues. And the plan has data infrastructure to validate outcomes without relying entirely on your reporting. When all five are true, outcome-based pricing can be a real differentiator. When two or three are true, it’s usually more friction than it’s worth for both sides.
When it’s the wrong move. Your impact compounds across multiple measurement cycles, and one contract year doesn’t capture it. Attribution is unsolvable because you’re one of many vendors and programs touching the same population. Procurement doesn’t have a contract template and building one from scratch adds three to six months. Your investors need predictable ARR and revenue tied to lagging outcomes creates forecasting problems that affect your ability to raise, scale, or hit milestones. You’re a smaller vendor and the actuarial and legal cost of structuring the deal exceeds the competitive advantage. Any one of these is a legitimate reason to stay with standard pricing, and to say so plainly when a buyer asks.
The middle ground most vendors miss: performance guarantees within standard pricing. This is the structure gaining the most traction with health plans right now, and it's what most vendors should actually be considering instead of simply Yes or No. You keep PMPM or flat-fee pricing, which gives the plan budget predictability and gives you revenue predictability, but then you attach a contractual guarantee like: if you don’t hit a defined outcome, you provide a remedy, whether that’s a fee rebate, extended service at no additional cost, or additional resources deployed to close the gap. The plan gets the “skin in the game” they’re looking for, and you get pricing differentiation without vastly restructuring your revenue model.
Once you’ve decided where you sit on that spectrum, the next challenge is articulating it. Most vendors who choose not to adopt outcome-based pricing know why, but they haven’t practiced saying it in a way that sounds like a strategic choice rather than a gap.
What to say when you’re not adopting outcome-based pricing. Most vendors either go silent or get defensive, and neither gives the buyer a reason to keep the conversation going. Here are three examples that position standard pricing as a strategic choice:
“We price on a PMPM basis because our impact on your Stars measures compounds over 18 months, and tying payment to a single quarter’s results would drive short-term interventions over the sustained engagement that actually moves your ratings.”
“We structure our pricing as a flat annual fee because it gives your finance team budget predictability, which matters more to CFOs right now than variable pricing tied to outcomes that take two measurement cycles to validate.”
“We offer a performance guarantee rather than outcome-based pricing because it gives you downside protection without the attribution infrastructure that fully outcome-based models require.”
One note that applies to all three: this language only works if the reasoning behind it is actually true for your solution. A vendor who parrots “our impact compounds over 18 months” without backing it up with data will get caught right away.
Want to pressure-test your pricing position before your next health plan conversation?
I built five questions that expose whether your team can actually defend your pricing rationale when a buyer, board member, or investor asks why you’re not doing outcome-based pricing.
📥 Shoot me a note and I’ll send them right over.
You now have the vocabulary, the positioning, and the outcome translation covered. Below the paywall are the three health plan convos that expose vendors who haven’t done the thinking, and the exact language your champion needs to carry your pricing story up and into health plan leadership.
Paid subscribers get this section plus the full archive of frameworks, scripts, and deep dives on selling to health plans.
🔒 Upgrade to a paid subscription to keep reading.