Meeting: Wavemaker 360
Date: 2026-02-19 Attendees: Thomas Startz, Michael Yuan, Michelle Wang (mwang@wavemaker360.com) Type: Intro Duration: ~31 min
Note: Transcript software labeled Thomas's audio as "Michael Yuan." Thomas was the primary speaker — confirmed by references to "Michael and I" and "my co-founder is sitting next to me."
Summary
Warm, substantive intro call. Michelle is a healthcare-only investor (ex-Carbon Health) who has been actively looking at payer solutions. She validated the FDE approach as differentiated — "not much behind" competitors with $40M raises — and shared useful competitive intel on Anterior Health. However, Wavemaker wants to see customer validation before investing deeper. Her close: "I would love to just get updates on how things are going." Good relationship to keep warm through execution.
Questions Asked
| # | Question (verbatim/near-verbatim) | Topic | Answer Quality | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "I'd love to hear how you guys started working on this" | Origin | decent | Standard origin story — ChatGPT excitement, talked to nurses, found UM. Fine but not differentiated. |
| 2 | "You mentioned they were specifically interested in you plugging into a few parts of the stack. Curious what parts those were." | Technical | strong | Thomas gave the appeals pressure framing — provider AI creating 10x denials, nursing capacity crunch. Michelle tracked immediately. |
| 3 | "Do you think they would want one vendor to handle the full stack or certain parts internally?" | Business Model | strong | Honest answer about insourcing bias + SaaS disruption thesis. Michelle nodded along — "definitely." |
| 4 | "What are you guys thinking about for the next year? What's the roadmap?" | Vision | decent | "Crush this execution for 3-6 months, make them a marquee partner." Clear but short-term. Didn't articulate the productization sequence. |
| 5 | "How did you guys land this? What was the angling that worked?" | Traction | strong | Honest "dumb luck" + Wharton professor intro → actuary → data science → CMO → analytics. Showed depth of relationship. Also landed the FDE vs. vendor procurement framing — 9 months vs. immediate. |
| 6 | "What are the parameters of the relationship right now?" | Business Model | decent | Chief actuary + head of data analytics, pricing proposal sent, going through procurement for 1099. Fine but Thomas could have been crisper on scope/deliverables. |
| 7 | "How much have you guys looked at the competitive landscape of startups building for payers?" | Competition | decent | Named Otter, Latitude, Praecepta. Turned it around on Michelle ("do you have a comp for us?") — good move. She gave useful intel on Anterior Health. |
Concerns Raised
- Wants customer validation before investing: "We typically like to invest right after the point of okay, we can speak to a customer and they can point to the great experience." — This is their fund's standard bar. Not a knock, but means we need to execute before re-engaging.
- Payer sales cycles slow everything: Michelle confirmed this is dragging out fundraising for all payer-focused startups. "Unfortunately the payer facing startups just haven't reached that clear path to velocity."
- Implied: timing is early. "I have no doubt that you can find a business out of this. It's just kind of putting together those pieces as you're building and observing."
What Resonated
- FDE as differentiated approach: "You're not much behind them. And if anything it is a differentiated approach that might help you move faster once you do find that unlock." Unprompted validation.
- Services > fake SaaS: "I'd rather have an honest presentation of what our revenue is than trying to make it seem more recurring. If it is services revenue, as long as you can point to actual ROI impact... sometimes that can actually be more sticky than fake ARR." Strong alignment with our thesis.
- Case study power: "One of the most powerful things, especially early stage, is getting a case study or testimonial from your customers. With a more handheld approach that can probably be more powerful."
- Appeals pressure framing: Tracked the second-order consequence story (provider AI → 10x denials → payer nursing crunch) immediately.
- Bootstrapping / both build: Implicit respect — "I think there's just greater investor recognition that a lot of what is called ARR right now is not true ARR."
- Buy vs. build honest framing: Thomas's SaaS disruption thesis landed well — Michelle agreed the market is shifting.
Our Commitments
- Keep Michelle updated on Premera progress — send update once contract signed and execution begins
- Connect at ViVE (both attending next week)
Their Next Steps
- Wants updates. No active process initiated. "I would love to just get updates on how things are going. We can check in after or whenever it makes sense."
Investor Insights
- Fund: Wavemaker 360 Health, Fund III (largest fund). Healthcare-only. Founded in LA, Michelle based in NYC (Flatiron office).
- Check size: $1-2M seed, $2-4M Series A. First check.
- LP base: All healthcare LPs — institutions and senior executives. Strategic capital thesis (plug founders into LP network for GTM acceleration).
- AI thesis: Concrete ROI, not foundation models. Integrated into workflow > point solutions. "Low hanging fruit" less interesting now. Have AI investments in record interoperability and Invoice AI.
- What they need to see: Customer validation — a customer who can speak to a great experience, even early. This is their standard before deeper engagement.
- Michelle's background: Ex-Carbon Health. NYC-based partner. Most team is in LA.
- Competitive insight on Anterior Health: Raised $40M but as of ~1 year ago "didn't have actually real customers or real contracts." Michelle's hunch: they're now trying to embed into big plans with all that capital. "I don't necessarily think you're that much behind even though they just did a $40 million round."
Interesting Moments
- Both in NYC and didn't know it. "We could have had this in person." Michelle is in Flatiron, DaisyAI in LES. Should meet in person at ViVE or before.
- Thomas turned the competitive question around: "Michelle, would love your thoughts. Are there comps that are seed stage, payer focused, that we can compare ourselves to?" Smart move — got her to share intel rather than evaluating us on our comps.
- "Fake ARR" alignment: Michelle and Thomas independently arrived at the same conclusion about services vs. SaaS. This is a fund that won't penalize services revenue if the ROI story is real. Rare and valuable.
- Blue Cross cross-sell mentioned: Thomas referenced Blue Cross plan → cross-sell applicability. Michelle didn't react negatively but also didn't probe further.