Table of Contents
Ready to See Results?
From strategy through execution, Atlantic Health Strategies integrates compliance, operations, and growth into durable, measurable results. Let’s put our expertise to work for your organization.
The Deal Isn't About Patients. It's About the Stack.
When PsychPlus announced the Koa Health acquisition, most of the trade coverage focused on the digital therapeutics angle and the cross-Atlantic story. Houston-based psychiatry group buys London-based digital mental health platform. Tidy headline.
The actual story is the Galaxy EHR, the scheduling layer, the documentation tooling, and the measurement-based care infrastructure that Koa built. PsychPlus did not buy a patient panel. They bought an owned technology platform and the engineering team that maintains it. That is a meaningfully different transaction than the psychiatry roll-ups I watched close in 2022 and 2023, where buyers were stacking NPIs and locations and running everything on a licensed copy of someone else’s EHR.
For the mid-market psychiatry operators and PE sponsors I talk to weekly, this is the signal worth paying attention to. The competitive bar just moved. If your nearest competitor owns its scheduling logic, its documentation templates, and its outcomes data pipeline, an off-the-shelf Athena or Kipu deployment is no longer a neutral choice. It is a strategic liability at exit.
Cross-Border Data Flows and the HIPAA / 42 CFR Part 2 Problem
Here is where buy-side diligence gets uncomfortable. Koa Health was built in the UK under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. PsychPlus operates in Texas, Florida, Georgia, and other US jurisdictions where HIPAA and, for any SUD-adjacent psychiatric care, 42 CFR Part 2 govern data handling. Those frameworks do not auto-translate.
When a US psychiatry operator acquires a UK-built platform, the diligence questions that actually matter are not the ones in the standard QofE checklist. They are: Where does the data physically sit today? Who has admin access from which country? Is there a Business Associate Agreement structure that holds up under an OCR investigation? Has the platform ever processed a record that would be subject to 42 CFR Part 2 consent rules, and if so, was the consent architecture even capable of capturing the right disclosures? I have watched buyers in Tennessee and Pennsylvania discover post-close that their newly acquired digital tool was sending PHI through a sub-processor in a jurisdiction nobody had mapped. The remediation cost on one of those was north of $400,000 and took eleven months.
If you are sitting on the sell-side and your platform was built outside the US, get ahead of this. A buyer’s counsel will find it. Better to disclose it with a remediation plan than to have it surface in week three of confirmatory diligence and reprice the deal.
Payer Viability of Digital Therapeutics in a US Psychiatry Book
The second diligence trap is reimbursement. Digital therapeutics have a reimbursement story in the US that is, charitably, still developing. CMS has issued guidance on certain digital mental health treatment devices, and a handful of commercial payers reimburse specific FDA-cleared products. Most do not. The CPT code landscape for digital therapeutic delivery is narrow, and prior authorization friction is real.
When PsychPlus folds Koa’s digital tools into its psychiatry workflows, the relevant question for an operator modeling a similar deal is not whether the technology is clinically interesting. It is whether the in-network commercial payers and Medicaid MCOs in your operating states will actually pay for the encounters those tools generate. In Florida and Texas, Medicaid digital health reimbursement looks very different than in Massachusetts or Washington. A pro forma that assumes uniform digital therapeutic reimbursement across a multi-state psychiatry footprint is a pro forma I would not sign off on.
I would push every sponsor underwriting this kind of deal to build the payer model bottom-up, state by state, payer by payer, with the SIU audit risk factored in. Aggressive digital therapeutic billing is exactly the kind of pattern that triggers a payer special investigations unit review. Ask anyone who lived through the 2023 commercial payer crackdown on telehealth billing in Georgia.
Integration Risk: Two Tech Stacks, One Operating Company
The third issue is the one that quietly kills synergy numbers. PsychPlus had a tech stack before the deal. Koa had a tech stack. Now there is one company and two stacks, and someone has to decide what survives.
I have sat through enough post-close integration meetings to know that the synergy slide in the LOI rarely survives contact with the engineering reality. The scheduling system the acquirer uses is wired into the credentialing database, which is wired into the payer enrollment files, which is wired into the clinical documentation. Pulling any one piece out to swap in the acquired company’s tool means re-validating every downstream workflow. For a psychiatry group with even 40 prescribers across multiple states, that is a six to nine month project minimum, and it happens while clinicians are still seeing patients and revenue cycle still has to close the month.
The operators I see do this well budget for a dedicated integration lead reporting to the COO, a frozen feature roadmap on both platforms for at least two quarters post-close, and an explicit clinical leadership sign-off on any documentation template change. The ones who do it poorly assume the engineering teams will figure it out and lose 15 to 20 percent of clinician productivity for a year while everyone fights the new tool.
What This Means for Buy-Side and Sell-Side Readiness
The PsychPlus–Koa deal is a marker. Mid-market psychiatry roll-ups are now competing on owned technology, and that changes what diligence has to cover and what sellers have to prepare. Leah Kendall will be at the BHB Addiction Summit in Chicago on July 15 and 16, and this is exactly the kind of conversation she will be having with sponsors and operators in the room.
If you are on the buy-side, expand the diligence scope. Add a tech and data governance workstream that sits alongside the financial, clinical, and regulatory streams. Map the data residency. Pressure-test the BAA structure. Get a real opinion on 42 CFR Part 2 applicability if any part of the target’s book touches SUD care. Model payer reimbursement state by state, not in aggregate. Budget integration cost honestly, not optimistically.
If you are on the sell-side and you have built proprietary technology, document it the way a buyer’s diligence team will want to see it documented. Data flow diagrams. Sub-processor lists. BAA inventories. Reimbursement evidence by payer. Engineering team retention plans. The sellers who get this right will see their multiples reflect the work. The ones who don’t will watch a strategic premium evaporate during confirmatory diligence, the same way we watched other operators lose nearly $6 million of headline value last year because the tech disclosures came late and incomplete.
References
- HHS Office for Civil Rights: HIPAA and Health Information Technology
- SAMHSA: 42 CFR Part 2 Confidentiality Regulations
- CMS: Physician Fee Schedule and Digital Mental Health Treatment Coding
- Behavioral Health Business: Coverage of Psychiatry M&A and Digital Health Acquisitions
- UK Information Commissioner’s Office: International Data Transfers under UK GDPR
- US Department of Justice: Health Care Fraud Enforcement