Co-Founder & CEO - AI Healthcare Revenue Recovery
for each section we include. Use - for lists. Use
for prose.
We need to preserve all substantive information, not invent or summarize away detail. Remove boilerplate like EEO, application instructions? The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. So we should drop "How to Apply" and the EEO statement. Also drop "FutureSight is committed to diversity..." etc.
We need to keep substantive content: The Opportunity description, About FutureSight, The Partnership, What You'll Own, Co-Founder Profile.
We need to map these to sections: About the role (maybe overview), Responsibilities (what you'll own), Requirements (co-founder profile?), Qualifications (maybe domain & workflow depth etc), Skills (maybe specific skills). We need to decide what content goes where.
We have to not repeat job title as heading. The page already shows it, so we don't add a heading for "Co-Founder & CEO". We'll just have sections.
We need to include only sections with real specific content. Let's extract:
About the role: Could be the initial paragraph describing the opportunity: "The Opportunity FutureSight is seeking a Co-Founder & CEO to lead Reclaim, an AI-native denial management and revenue recovery venture. This is a co-founder partnership with meaningful founder equity, not a salaried executive role. We are entering a $16B+ Total Addressable Market with a gaping $ 7.5B–$10B whitespace, targeting the highly underserved mid-market segment. Currently, 30–40% of denied medical claims go uncontested because practices lack the staff and capital to contest them. This systemic failure leaves between $50,000 and $300,000 in legally earned revenue permanently abandoned at each practice every year. Reclaim AI resolves denied and aged claims end-to-end, embedding outcome-based contingency pricing—meaning practices pay zero upfront, and we only take a cut of the dollars we successfully recover, for our target ideal customer profile (practices with $80K+ in annual recoverable claims). Market Context We Didn’t Just Read Market Reports; We Spent Weeks Interviewing Billing Managers, Practice Owners, Revenue Cycle Leaders At Health Systems, And Even Digital Operations Leaders At Major Insurance Companies. The Dysfunction We Uncovered Is Staggering, Creating a Massive Opportunity For a Disruptor The pain is so severe, practices are building their own tech: The frustration of payer opacity is so deep that medical billers are hiring part-time software engineers to build in-house robotic process automation (RPA) scrapers just to check claim statuses.Massive, emotional write-offs: Staff carry immense guilt over these administrative losses. One small-practice assistant admitted, "I feel like we probably had to write off probably close to a million dollars" simply because they couldn't keep up with the manual follow-ups.The "Payer-Side Inversion" Opportunity: We discovered that insurance companies are drowning in the exact same claims dysfunction they generate. One major payer we interviewed reported a backlog of 31,000 contested claims that consumed 80% of their staff's operational capacity, forcing emergency hires just to manage the disputes.The Competition is Distracted: Well-funded Tier-1 competitors are charging $15K+ upfront licensing fees and fighting over enterprise health systems. The competitive window to capture the mid-market with a contingency-priced autonomous agent is wide open."
That's a lot of prose. Could be split into paragraphs.
About FutureSight: paragraph about FutureSight.
The Partnership: bullet list of items: Founder equity..., Pre-seed capital..., Venture building resources..., Investor and advisor network..., A true co-creation model...
What You’ll Own: bullet list of items: Strategy..., Customer Development..., Product..., Capital..., Team...
Co-Founder Profile: bullet list of items: Domain & Workflow Depth..., Previous founding experience..., Demonstrated success..., Fundraising fluency..., Proven ability..., Clear-eyed understanding...
We need to decide sections: About the role (overview), Responsibilities (What You'll Own), Requirements (Co-Founder Profile?), Qualifications (maybe Domain & Workflow Depth etc), Skills (maybe specific skills like fundraising, B2B SaaS go-to-market). But we must not invent content; we need to map actual content.
Better to follow the headings given in the posting: "About FutureSight", "The Partnership", "What You’ll Own", "Co-Founder Profile". But the instruction says use headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. So we need to map content to those headings. If a heading doesn't have specific content, we omit it.
Thus we need to decide which of those headings have content.
- About the role: we have the initial opportunity description. That fits.
- Responsibilities: we have "What You’ll Own" which lists responsibilities.
- Requirements: we have "Co-Founder Profile" which lists requirements.
- Qualifications: maybe overlapping with Requirements; but we could treat "Domain & Workflow Depth" etc as qualifications. However we already used Co-Founder Profile for requirements; we could split: Requirements = previous founding experience, demonstrated success, fundraising fluency, ability to attract talent, understanding risks. Qualifications = domain & workflow depth, knowledge of denial codes, familiarity with systems. But we need to avoid duplication and filler. Let's see if we can split sensibly.
- Skills: maybe specific skills like B2B AI or B2B SaaS go-to-market, sales, customer engagement, fundraising narratives, closing capital, talent acquisition.
But we need to ensure we don't create sections with filler like "not specified". If we split, we must ensure each section has real content.
Let's extract bullet points from Co-Founder Profile:
"Domain & Workflow Depth: You have direct exposure to healthcare revenue cycle, medical billing, or denial management. You understand the nuanced differences in denial codes, know why administrative denials (like credentialing gaps) are uniquely painful, and intuitively understand the fragmented systems (e.g., Tebra, eClinicalWorks, Availity) that billers are forced to use"
"Previous founding experience at a venture-backed company"
"Demonstrated success in B2B AI or B2B SaaS go-to-market, including sales and customer engagement"
"Fundraising fluency, with the ability to develop investor narratives and close capital"
"Proven ability to attract, develop, and retain top talent"
"Clear-eyed understanding of the risks and demands of co-founding a venture-backed company"
We could map:
Requirements: Previous founding experience, Demonstrated success in B2B AI/B2B SaaS go-to-market, Fundraising fluency, Proven ability to attract/retain talent, Clear-eyed understanding of risks.
Qualifications: Domain & Workflow Depth (exposure to healthcare revenue cycle, understanding denial codes, fragmented systems).
Skills: maybe the same as requirements? But we could treat Skills as the specific abilities: sales and customer engagement, developing investor narratives, closing capital, attracting talent, understanding denial codes, etc. However that may duplicate.
Given instruction to prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones, maybe we just use three sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements. And omit Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
But we have also About FutureSight and The Partnership content. Where to put those? They could be part of About the role (company background). Or we could create a separate section like "About the Company" but not in allowed headings. Since only allowed headings are those listed, we must fit content into those headings or omit. The instruction: "use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It says e.g., implying those are examples, but we should use those headings. It also says "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". So we can use any of those headings if we have content. We could also use other headings? The examples suggest those are the allowed headings. Safer to stick to those.
Thus we need to map About FutureSight and The Partnership into one of those headings. Perhaps "About the role" can include company context. Or we could treat "About the role" as the opportunity description, and put FutureSight and Partnership under "Responsibilities"? Not ideal.
Maybe we can create a section "About the role" that includes the opportunity description and also About FutureSight and The Partnership as subpoints? But we need to use
for prose and
- for lists. We could have multiple paragraphs.
Thus About the role section could contain several paragraphs: the opportunity description, then a paragraph about FutureSight, then a paragraph about the Partnership.
Then Responsibilities: What You'll Own bullet list.
Then Requirements: Co-Founder Profile bullet list.
We omit Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
Check if any content left out: The "Market Context" paragraphs are part of opportunity description, we included.
Now ensure we don't include boilerplate: Remove "How to Apply", "FutureSight is committed to diversity..." etc.
Now produce HTML:
About the role
... opportunity description ...
... About FutureSight ...
... The Partnership ...
Then Responsibilities
- ... each bullet ...
Then Requirements
- ... each bullet ...
Make sure to preserve all substantive information. Let's extract exact sentences.
Opportunity description: We need to keep all details. Let's copy the paragraph(s) exactly as in posting, but we can break into multiple paragraphs for readability.
Original:
"The Opportunity FutureSight is seeking a Co-Founder & CEO to lead Reclaim, an AI-native denial management and revenue recovery venture. This is a co-founder partnership with meaningful founder equity, not a salaried executive role. We are entering a $16B+ Total Addressable Market with a gaping $ 7.5B–$10B whitespace, targeting the highly underserved mid-market segment. Currently, 30–40% of denied medical claims go uncontested because practices lack the staff and capital to contest them. This systemic failure leaves between $50,000 and $300,000 in legally earned revenue permanently abandoned at each practice every year. Reclaim AI resolves denied and aged claims end-to-end, embedding outcome-based contingency pricing—meaning practices pay zero upfront, and we only take a cut of the dollars we successfully recover, for our target ideal customer profile (practices with $80K+ in annual recoverable claims). Market Context We Didn’t Just Read Market Reports; We Spent Weeks Interviewing Billing Managers, Practice Owners, Revenue Cycle Leaders At Health Systems, And Even Digital Operations Leaders At Major Insurance Companies. The Dysfunction We Uncovered Is Staggering, Creating a Massive Opportunity For a Disruptor The pain is so severe, practices are building their own tech: The frustration of payer opacity is so deep that medical billers are hiring part-time software engineers to build in-house robotic process automation (RPA) scrapers just to check claim statuses.Massive, emotional write-offs: Staff carry immense guilt over these administrative losses. One small-practice assistant admitted, "I feel like we probably had to write off probably close to a million dollars" simply because they couldn't keep up with the manual follow-ups.The "Payer-Side Inversion" Opportunity: We discovered that insurance companies are drowning in the
for prose. We need to preserve all substantive information, not invent or summarize away detail. Remove boilerplate like EEO, application instructions? The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. So we should drop "How to Apply" and the EEO statement. Also drop "FutureSight is committed to diversity..." etc. We need to keep substantive content: The Opportunity description, About FutureSight, The Partnership, What You'll Own, Co-Founder Profile. We need to map these to sections: About the role (maybe overview), Responsibilities (what you'll own), Requirements (co-founder profile?), Qualifications (maybe domain & workflow depth etc), Skills (maybe specific skills). We need to decide what content goes where. We have to not repeat job title as heading. The page already shows it, so we don't add a heading for "Co-Founder & CEO". We'll just have sections. We need to include only sections with real specific content. Let's extract: About the role: Could be the initial paragraph describing the opportunity: "The Opportunity FutureSight is seeking a Co-Founder & CEO to lead Reclaim, an AI-native denial management and revenue recovery venture. This is a co-founder partnership with meaningful founder equity, not a salaried executive role. We are entering a $16B+ Total Addressable Market with a gaping $ 7.5B–$10B whitespace, targeting the highly underserved mid-market segment. Currently, 30–40% of denied medical claims go uncontested because practices lack the staff and capital to contest them. This systemic failure leaves between $50,000 and $300,000 in legally earned revenue permanently abandoned at each practice every year. Reclaim AI resolves denied and aged claims end-to-end, embedding outcome-based contingency pricing—meaning practices pay zero upfront, and we only take a cut of the dollars we successfully recover, for our target ideal customer profile (practices with $80K+ in annual recoverable claims). Market Context We Didn’t Just Read Market Reports; We Spent Weeks Interviewing Billing Managers, Practice Owners, Revenue Cycle Leaders At Health Systems, And Even Digital Operations Leaders At Major Insurance Companies. The Dysfunction We Uncovered Is Staggering, Creating a Massive Opportunity For a Disruptor The pain is so severe, practices are building their own tech: The frustration of payer opacity is so deep that medical billers are hiring part-time software engineers to build in-house robotic process automation (RPA) scrapers just to check claim statuses.Massive, emotional write-offs: Staff carry immense guilt over these administrative losses. One small-practice assistant admitted, "I feel like we probably had to write off probably close to a million dollars" simply because they couldn't keep up with the manual follow-ups.The "Payer-Side Inversion" Opportunity: We discovered that insurance companies are drowning in the exact same claims dysfunction they generate. One major payer we interviewed reported a backlog of 31,000 contested claims that consumed 80% of their staff's operational capacity, forcing emergency hires just to manage the disputes.The Competition is Distracted: Well-funded Tier-1 competitors are charging $15K+ upfront licensing fees and fighting over enterprise health systems. The competitive window to capture the mid-market with a contingency-priced autonomous agent is wide open." That's a lot of prose. Could be split into paragraphs. About FutureSight: paragraph about FutureSight. The Partnership: bullet list of items: Founder equity..., Pre-seed capital..., Venture building resources..., Investor and advisor network..., A true co-creation model... What You’ll Own: bullet list of items: Strategy..., Customer Development..., Product..., Capital..., Team... Co-Founder Profile: bullet list of items: Domain & Workflow Depth..., Previous founding experience..., Demonstrated success..., Fundraising fluency..., Proven ability..., Clear-eyed understanding... We need to decide sections: About the role (overview), Responsibilities (What You'll Own), Requirements (Co-Founder Profile?), Qualifications (maybe Domain & Workflow Depth etc), Skills (maybe specific skills like fundraising, B2B SaaS go-to-market). But we must not invent content; we need to map actual content. Better to follow the headings given in the posting: "About FutureSight", "The Partnership", "What You’ll Own", "Co-Founder Profile". But the instruction says use headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. So we need to map content to those headings. If a heading doesn't have specific content, we omit it. Thus we need to decide which of those headings have content. - About the role: we have the initial opportunity description. That fits. - Responsibilities: we have "What You’ll Own" which lists responsibilities. - Requirements: we have "Co-Founder Profile" which lists requirements. - Qualifications: maybe overlapping with Requirements; but we could treat "Domain & Workflow Depth" etc as qualifications. However we already used Co-Founder Profile for requirements; we could split: Requirements = previous founding experience, demonstrated success, fundraising fluency, ability to attract talent, understanding risks. Qualifications = domain & workflow depth, knowledge of denial codes, familiarity with systems. But we need to avoid duplication and filler. Let's see if we can split sensibly. - Skills: maybe specific skills like B2B AI or B2B SaaS go-to-market, sales, customer engagement, fundraising narratives, closing capital, talent acquisition. But we need to ensure we don't create sections with filler like "not specified". If we split, we must ensure each section has real content. Let's extract bullet points from Co-Founder Profile: "Domain & Workflow Depth: You have direct exposure to healthcare revenue cycle, medical billing, or denial management. You understand the nuanced differences in denial codes, know why administrative denials (like credentialing gaps) are uniquely painful, and intuitively understand the fragmented systems (e.g., Tebra, eClinicalWorks, Availity) that billers are forced to use" "Previous founding experience at a venture-backed company" "Demonstrated success in B2B AI or B2B SaaS go-to-market, including sales and customer engagement" "Fundraising fluency, with the ability to develop investor narratives and close capital" "Proven ability to attract, develop, and retain top talent" "Clear-eyed understanding of the risks and demands of co-founding a venture-backed company" We could map: Requirements: Previous founding experience, Demonstrated success in B2B AI/B2B SaaS go-to-market, Fundraising fluency, Proven ability to attract/retain talent, Clear-eyed understanding of risks. Qualifications: Domain & Workflow Depth (exposure to healthcare revenue cycle, understanding denial codes, fragmented systems). Skills: maybe the same as requirements? But we could treat Skills as the specific abilities: sales and customer engagement, developing investor narratives, closing capital, attracting talent, understanding denial codes, etc. However that may duplicate. Given instruction to prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones, maybe we just use three sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements. And omit Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. But we have also About FutureSight and The Partnership content. Where to put those? They could be part of About the role (company background). Or we could create a separate section like "About the Company" but not in allowed headings. Since only allowed headings are those listed, we must fit content into those headings or omit. The instruction: "use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It says e.g., implying those are examples, but we should use those headings. It also says "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". So we can use any of those headings if we have content. We could also use other headings? The examples suggest those are the allowed headings. Safer to stick to those. Thus we need to map About FutureSight and The Partnership into one of those headings. Perhaps "About the role" can include company context. Or we could treat "About the role" as the opportunity description, and put FutureSight and Partnership under "Responsibilities"? Not ideal. Maybe we can create a section "About the role" that includes the opportunity description and also About FutureSight and The Partnership as subpoints? But we need to use
for prose and
- for lists. We could have multiple paragraphs.
Thus About the role section could contain several paragraphs: the opportunity description, then a paragraph about FutureSight, then a paragraph about the Partnership.
Then Responsibilities: What You'll Own bullet list.
Then Requirements: Co-Founder Profile bullet list.
We omit Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
Check if any content left out: The "Market Context" paragraphs are part of opportunity description, we included.
Now ensure we don't include boilerplate: Remove "How to Apply", "FutureSight is committed to diversity..." etc.
Now produce HTML:
About the role
... opportunity description ...
... About FutureSight ...
... The Partnership ...
ThenResponsibilities
- ... each bullet ...
Requirements
- ... each bullet ...