What does Solera’s $2.42 ROI measure?

Solera reports a $2.42 return for every dollar invested alongside a $1,241 reduction in medical and pharmacy spending per enrolled member over six months. The public materials do not provide enough information to reconstruct either with sufficient precision.

The reported claims difference and the ROI are not the same measure

Solera describes the $1,241 result as the difference in medical and pharmacy cost trajectories between enrolled members and matched controls. That is a claims-spending result.

The white paper then states that, after accounting for program fees, savings represented approximately 11% of baseline spending and separately reports the $2.42 ROI. It does not provide the calculation showing how program costs, network costs, milestone payments, or other fees move from the $1,241 claims result to the reported ROI.

The paper’s 100,000-member example reports $12.4 million in annualized savings under its approximately 2% scenario. If the reported $2.42 ROI is calculated as gross savings ÷ program fees, the implied fees would be approximately $5.1 million. If instead ROI is calculated as net savings ÷ program fees, the implied fees would be approximately $3.6 million. Assuming two covered members per employee contract, those amounts would correspond to approximately $8.55 or $6.05 PEPM, respectively. These are implied amounts under alternative ROI definitions, not disclosed Solera fees.

“Program fees” need to be unpacked

Solera's model combines a network layer with interventions delivered by multiple digital health partners. A purchaser therefore needs more than a single aggregate program-cost figure.

At minimum, the economic reconciliation should identify:

• the cost of the underlying intervention;

• the cost associated with Solera's network, curation, matching, and administrative functions;

• which payments are triggered by engagement;

• which payments require a clinical milestone;

• whether fees differ by condition, acuity, or intervention intensity;

• and whether the reported study economics include every payment a purchaser would incur under the commercial arrangement.

This is particularly important for a network intended to direct members toward different levels of care. External economic modeling of digital MSK programs illustrates why: program cost can vary substantially by acuity and treatment intensity, and the enrollment mix can materially affect ROI.

An aggregate ROI can therefore be valid for one particular program mix without transferring cleanly to another purchaser.

ROI also depends on who receives the intervention

The parent Core Review identifies the population pathway required to reproduce Solera's plan-level savings estimate:

covered population → eligible population → identified members → enrollment → sustained participation → participant effect → plan effect

The same pathway governs ROI.

A purchaser with a higher concentration of members who have substantial avoidable utilization may have considerably more economic opportunity than one whose enrolled population is lower acuity. Conversely, expanding participation can increase the number of members generating program costs faster than it increases avoidable claims.

That is why enrollment is not itself economic value.

What should a purchaser ask?

A purchaser evaluating the ROI figure should ask:

• What is the precise ROI formula?

• Which fees are included in “program fees”?

• How are underlying digital health partner costs and Solera's network costs represented?

• Which payments are triggered by engagement versus clinical results?

• What portion of the reported economic result came from each major program category?

• How would the ROI change using our eligible population, expected enrollment, program mix, baseline claims, and contracted prices?

The purchaser implication

Solera's ROI is a reported result from the same conditionally established analysis underlying the Core Review. It may provide a useful starting point for economic diligence, but the public materials do not provide enough detail to treat it as a purchaser-specific value estimate.

The more useful purchasing exercise is not to begin with Solera's reported ROI and ask whether it is attractive. It is to underwrite the purchaser's own population, determine the plausible economic opportunity, and then determine what price that opportunity can support.