Transcript
James Donachie (00:00) hey, everyone.
Ashley Moore (00:02) Hello? Hi, hi.
James Donachie (00:07) Donna you have the spring? My question has been answered about what’s next on the Ivy?
Ashley Moore (00:17) We’re ready to go.
James Donachie (00:18) Ready for the good weather, a hint of Easter, but not too much.
James Donachie (00:28) All right. We’re waiting on Nick and Justin and they will be here momentarily… for the people on the call yesterday. I let Nick know about if he was participating with the leprechaun prank… he’s going to, at some point going to pick your guys brain because he said that they didn’t do elf on the shelf this year, but he thinks next year he could succumb to having to participate and also leprechaun. And I was like, well, this is the group.
Ashley Moore (01:03) He needs validation to just say no.
James Donachie (01:05) Yeah. Well, I told him that Ashley’s elf lives in one room and I was like, that sounds like the way that you want to have it.
James Donachie (01:21) Kim, I just heard from Justin in between meetings. I’ve had a bunch of calls on Thursday. I haven’t been able to check in my bracket to see if it’s been busted yet. But he said that he’s working on the malpractice, I gave him the initial three things that we went over yesterday. So I think we should start to see some of those changes in there for the filter requests as well. And then after that here’s… Nick. And then I think the malpractice one, he’s got to work on the last little thing, but we’ll be able to get it updated. So those three things are already in flight, which is exactly what we wanted. Hey, Justin. Hey, everyone. How goes it?
Justin N (02:23) Not bad. Not too shabby can’t complain.
James Donachie (02:26) Nice. Well, everyone here is very excited and I just, I told them that you already handled two of the three items that the malpractice were just like takes a little bit more technical. I’m not going to pretend like, I know what goes on in the back end, but I know, you know, which is important, yeah.
Justin N (02:53) In our data warehouse. So usually what happens in our data warehouse is not everything aligns with what’s in platform, which is a gripe that I have as an analyst here at medallion, there’s just a lot of work that goes into making things align between what I can query using SQL from our data warehouse and what’s in the back end on the platforms housed on the front end. What the information you see, the information you provide, and the information I can even pull from. Usually what happens is if we need to pull information from something that was like directly uploaded to the platform, we pull from either an API endpoint or what happens is our technical solutions management team which is on the analyst under that team. We would need implementation managers to then get that data, package it up and then send it to you if that was like the route. So, yeah, it seems so easy but there’s just so much complications around it. So the only information I see so far is malpractice on the individual provider level. So I need to do more digging with our engineers and make sure that if we do have source of truth information on the platform, how can I get that data into a warehouse? Put it in a custom report and then make sure that it’s available on the provider roster that’s sort of like the steps I would end up going to make sure I have that information. But yeah, so far, all I’m seeing is malpractice information on the provider level, which I ended up making… more clear like in one of the data fields is insurance type and that shows it’ll say provider. And if that’s not correct, also let me know because then there’s some updating we need to do on the engineering side to make sure that data is refreshed, source of truth and accurate.
James Donachie (04:43) For you.
Justin N (04:44) All but that’s on the malpractice side. But if I may, I could dive right into, I know just… check quickly. I know Ashley, I don’t know if Ashley moore is on the call, yep.
Ashley Moore (05:05) Hi, Justin. Thank you for all of your hard work. A note about the malpractice? I see it on the custom provider roster, but it’s not the iv policy like it’s their old policies. And so, is that what you’re going to still dig into work on or is that the information maybe you needed to know?
Justin N (05:28) Yeah, for sure. So even on the individual type, is this data not updated?
Ashley Moore (05:35) It is so like if I went into this provider’s record, it’s just another one of their records is reflected they have updated policies, newer policies. But for some reason this one is pooling.
Justin N (05:51) Okay. Gotcha. Yeah, no, I can definitely look into that. Yeah, there’s definitely… that’s definitely a chat I have to have with engineering to make sure the table that I’m putting from the data that I’m pulling from is refreshed and updated with what we see in the platform. So, as long as the platform has, does the platform have correct information?
Ashley Moore (06:13) Ashley, what? Yeah. And I can’t really pinpoint like between the ones that have the older policies, maybe from a different job or just within, you know, their five years… and what’s different about them that it’s not pulling the new policy.
Justin N (06:30) Gotcha. Yeah, that’s good. That’s good. I, that’s enough information for me. I can definitely do more digging and make sure I get aligned. Gotcha. Yeah. To your point, that’s what I was just going to ask.
James Donachie (06:43) Lindsay was, do we have a provider… answer? Perfect. Alrighty. One step ahead. Okay. Perfect. Yeah.
Justin N (06:53) I’m pretty sure though since I’m pulling from the table right now, Mansi’s current policy is probably outdated as well. Is that correct? Or is it just one provider has accurate information? It’s.
Ashley Moore (07:04) probably the 20 25 one. If I had to guess 20 25 or 20 26. I don’t know that this person has been updated with the new policy, gotcha. But it’s showing one from like 20 20 yep.
Justin N (07:19) Okay, perfect. Let me take some notes here. All right. Yeah. One thing to look into is malpractice information to make sure it’s updated.
James Donachie (07:27) Justin, I have, I’m the king of notetakers. They follow me everywhere, so, I can share the transcript from the call too. So don’t as long as we say, it will be captured on our notetaker.
Justin N (07:44) So sounds good. And yeah, one follow up, I know the question was having license information inside the provider roster report. So as I was working, I told, I was talking to James yesterday as I was working on this. Usually, what happens is I have a QA process and I make sure especially all the scenarios you brought up to me that when I update the code, it meets the needs of all scenarios. And what was happening is as I was updating the report… it was meeting scenario one and scenario two. But then it was failing for scenario three. Then I updated the code. It was working for. Scenario three wasn’t working for scenario one and two. And it’s not in and of itself the code. It’s the complexity of the data and what was causing issues was the fact that there’s so many ways… the data can be cut. So, for example, if one person has one state and one license, it may work. But then the code cannot work for two specific cases where someone who works at two states with three licenses, when you add another dimension to, it adds complexity to the data. And when SQL is not a scripting language like software engineer, like python and the kind of code that builds websites and kind of things, SQL is very, I would say very raw in and of itself. So with that complexity and the fact that we’re joining from multiple tables and there’s duplicates already in our table. And there’s so much information we’re pulling from the way to add licensing table, licensing information to this table is it can only meet either one scenario, which was scenario three and not scenario one and two or scenario one and two and just not sufficient for scenario three. So with that being said, and I was working tirelessly on this like I was determined to make sure make it work and add like more complicated sequel to how to hit another edge case and make another column. And then what was going to happen was then the report was just going to get bloated and way too complicated and the code was going to be more complicated. And when the code is more complicated, the report refresh takes longer. So let’s say you were to use the report every time you add a new filter in the report, it was just going to take more longer to load. And I didn’t want that user experience to happen. So what I did was I put the license report under it and it works in tandem. I just updated, it works in tandem with the top report. And this is just the way it works. It’s not maybe it’s not as ideal for your team but one thing you can do. Is when you, if let’s say you downloaded both of these reports without using the filters in excel, if you ever wanted to match provider summary to the license report, what you can do is create more functions in excel where you can index match and let’s say you’re looking at Mansi, you take a provider id, open up a new sheet, have a function for provider id. And then license report can update and say here’s we’re index matching on Mansi’s, provider here’s all her licenses, which is what I did inside the platform. The reason why I did it in the platform was because if you didn’t want to download this data in excel and build, let’s say more functional reporting in excel, more creative things. If you do use the report, as is, if you type in a provider on the bottom is going to show all her all the person’s licenses. And it now works for multiple groups. So let’s say I just want groups of Ivy. I think there was Ivy Rehab network inc north and Ivy Rehab network inc south. When you do update, the provider roster is only going to show providers in that group. And then on the bottom, it’s going to show licenses of all providers in that group. And then if you want to get specific, just type in someone’s name, and then boom it’ll show you right away what… their licenses. So as I share my screen, right? We type in Mansi, it doesn’t even have to be perfect. Just type in anybody’s name as you want. You’ll see that it’s going to take some time to load. And now all of Mansi’s licenses appear at the bottom. And then the provider roster is only going to update for Mansi as well. And if I didn’t want to do someone’s specific name, see how the provider roster takes a little bit of time to load. That’s something I wanted to make sure. And then let’s say I just focused on groups. The licenses will show providers in those groups. And the provider roster will show providers in that group. And then I can even go a step further and still type in someone’s name. And then I know that they’re in that group or even the state. And then I will see their active licenses on the bottom. So everyone who’s in…, the therapy llcpa, will get all active licenses on the bottom. And then I want to see, let’s see. I see Devin albaino, does he have more licenses that are just not showing up? Right now? Let me just type in Devin. Boom. Now we’re going to see all of Devin’s licenses and we know that there’s one available. And then obviously the provider roster is a little more built out. So it takes a little more time to load. So I tried to as my best to create tandem between a lot of provider information and their licenses as well. Ashley, I see you have it.
Ashley Moore (13:15) Yeah, thank you, Justin. That’s a huge that’s really helpful. And like Lindsey said, the filters are incredibly helpful. So thank you for that. I wanted to kind of come back a little bit while this visibility is so helpful. We still need one roster ideally without a lot of manual work in excel. And so taking going back to the four scenarios, taking three and four out of it and really just kind of thinking of like really basic information on the report. Is there a way? And so also, I can show you the provider or the practice tab kind of like going into this, but is there a way to add a primary designation on the license page? Just like just basic question going into a provider setup and the licensure, and similarly, the location or practice page is set up that way with a primary designation.
Justin N (14:22) Okay. So you want to basically use these reports and have a filter where you want to see primary location and the license associated with that?
Ashley Moore (14:31) Yeah. But even before we get that far, is it even possible to have a primary designation added to the license page?
Ashley Moore (14:46) Similar to the practice page?
Justin N (14:50) I’ll show you live right now. All right. Hold on. Let me bring up some more. I’ll show you.
Justin N (15:07) Yeah, my QA for malpractice as well is here, which is nice to bring in some info. Can everyone see my screen? Yeah, we just see the malpractice.
Ashley Moore (15:19) It’s just the reporting filter.
Justin N (15:21) Okay. Hold on, share this tab instead. All right. It updated, correct? Yep. So this is Ivy’s organization id. These are two tables for malpractice, and you see if I filter for your organization id… we just no data appears which ideally shouldn’t be the case. Boom. No data for Ivy’s organization boom. That’s one thing. So, yeah, I’m going to chat about engineering on that back to licensing. So in our licensing table, this is the licensing information we have right here, we see we have provider id. We have registration license number. Yes, I.
Ashley Moore (16:02) know it’s in there right now, but is it possible to add in a primary designation?
Justin N (16:10) And all right. So there could definitely be a possibility with primary designation. What is that primary referring to? Is it location?
Ashley Moore (16:19) No, it would be, if a provider had three license records entered, we would be able to select one of them as primary. It would be a state license in there. Probably the other licensure would also be state license. Or I mean just maybe a different state license gotcha.
Justin N (16:41) I don’t know if that’s possible. I don’t know if that maybe that’s a platform, something… that can be done in platform where.
Justin N (16:56) Provider link where… we see the provider and we can go into the license. I mean, their provider profile and their existing licenses. Yeah.
Ashley Moore (17:07) And so the columns at the top, there would just be another column. And if you click on practices up at the top, you can kind of see what I mean. Do you see that primary? Yeah?
Justin N (17:19) Yeah, exactly. That’s so that’s the way the data also works. Like when I look at practice information, we have a primary, the data does show like this is a primary location. And that works, that functionality does not work on the way it does with licenses, the way it does for practices in platform right there. Now, that doesn’t mean that this is set in stone. Like there could be a case where James talks to our tech platform team and creates a ticket and say, hey, in tech support, is there a way that we can add this same functionality for licenses?
James Donachie (17:58) Then then,
Justin N (17:59) boom that works. If I get that data then ported into the data warehouse, then in our customer porting, I can make that reflect, the hack or workaround that I have as a data analyst is if I know that this is a New Jersey is the primary location, I can then say if you have, if I had a filter and say primary is New Jersey. You selected, show me all licenses associated with this primary location that’s the workaround. I can do, I know it’s not the same, but if we don’t go the tech support route, that’s the only customer porting route. I can go where it’s like we don’t have a functionality right now built in to say this license is primary, but I can create a workaround where it says you’ve chose this primary location. Here are all the licenses in that state for this provider, from that primary location? Yeah.
Ashley Moore (18:48) I mean, I think, yeah, I think that’s great. I mean, ideally it would be, we would be able to select primary and then in return kind of on the reporting, how that practice location primary plays out on the report is, it’s just an extra column that shows true false and so that’s what we would hope for in the reporting too. But if that’s not possible right now, I think… I would appreciate, I don’t know if the rest of the group, but just adding like going back to how the report was as far as the licensure, like not having it in there at all. Yeah, I mean to me isn’t ideal.
Justin N (19:31) That’s understandable. I think so because the thing is this report is very, it’s already very complex. The way the code works. License information in general has so many dimensions associated with it and so much information that if there’s an ideal state, we have to come to an agreement on what license information we show.
Justin N (19:55) Because what can end up happening is we end up showing license information for a specific provider. It’s not going to end up being complete for all providers. For example, if we come to an agreement on license that we show one license, a provider who has six licenses, it’s not going to be accurate for a provider who has six licenses versus a provider who has one. Where that can be okay if we come to an agreement on what license we, show the most recent based on issue date or show the most recent based on when it’s going to expire. There’s more flexibility there.
Ashley Moore (20:27) So, would it be possible to go back to the logic that we were at before they were removed? Yes?
Justin N (20:34) And keep the breakout because.
Ashley Moore (20:37) I think it is really beneficial to see it broken out like that, but I think internally, we’d have to decide, you know, which one we’d want if it was a choice. But if we could keep both, that’s great.
Justin N (20:48) Yeah, for sure. All I got to do is uncomment out that code and the code click run, save the report’s. Going to go back to the way it previously was showing license information inside the provider code roster. And the bottom still is going to stay the same with extra license information.
James Donachie (21:08) Justin, I think so. Ashley, what we can do too, I’m thinking aloud that primary we can work. I can work on like a technical ticket. We all know that technical tickets don’t get resolved overnight here. Yeah, Nick and I are on a bit of a hot streak so we can bring it up. And then if the data becomes available then it sounds like Justin will be able to work with it. So I can take that as like a follow up for like future state of like let’s… see if we can get that designation and column in there and then resolve it.
Ashley Moore (21:51) And I.
James Donachie (21:52) know we have, I know.
Justin N (21:54) Kim has a question as well. It might be on this report, James, oh, yeah.
James Donachie (21:58) Go ahead, Kim.
Kim Jackson (21:59) Yeah, I was just wondering if we do revert everything back. Is there a way to still keep that provider active state license report available for us?
Justin N (22:11) Yeah, it’ll just stay on the bottom and it’ll still work how it works with all the filtering. You would just now in the provider roster have extra license information, not for all edge cases but the way it worked before where you might not see James dapt license appear kind of thing. But if you put James in the filter, the bottom provider active license, state report will show all of James licenses.
Kim Jackson (22:42) You just lost me. I’ll be completely honest, so.
Justin N (22:45) Yeah, I will show what the report looked like prior. But the added benefit is that license information added at the bottom will still remain the same and work perfectly fine with the filtering on the top… like name filter… it will.
Kim Jackson (23:06) Still show all of the provider’s license down at the bottom. So like let’s say if I wanted to pull up a specific group? And I said, I only want to see their pa license. So I do pa, in practice state, would it only pull up their Pennsylvania license down at the bottom? Still?
Justin N (23:24) It will show, yes, it will only pull pa. But if you filter… on the name, it’ll show pa plus whatever other state licenses. So still you still want to use the filtering correctly, the filtering works exactly how it is. So if you say pa, only pa information is going to show, but if you filter on a group or a name, all licenses are going to show. Okay?
Kim Jackson (23:50) Perfect. Thank you. And.
Justin N (23:54) Yeah. And the provider roster will still go back to the functionality of having those license columns that it had that’s limited. But the bottom provider active state licenses is not limited. You put somebody’s name in and you put a group in. All licenses are going to appear. Thanks James like a dapt license will appear. Whatever’s not appearing in the provider roster, license information will still appear at the bottom. Awesome because obviously adding license information to the provider roster, we can’t meet all edge cases. The bottom table can meet all edge cases because it’s only license information.
James Donachie (24:32) Justin, what I’m thinking too is it’s just in their hands. So I feel like Kim.
Justin N (24:39) To your point?
James Donachie (24:40) Yeah. Work it, use it if like we can, we have our meeting next like our creb meeting next week or like we can capture some of the questions and then figure… out like how to use it because I know we had these main scenarios which it sounds like we’re mostly solving for, but there are those couple like edge cases that Justin he’s going to work on them on the malpractice. And then we can kind of, I think we’re in a net, much better spot than we were two weeks ago, which is great. And then we can kind of work on some of this stuff like refining it here, which hopefully… this is helpful net helpful for you guys so… far. And then… Justin, is there any other thing I know? Because we have like four minutes left that you wanted to kind of highlight on the call for with them of like things that you did that might have like a little like best practices. I can also, I shared the like a highlight. I think you’re on the email from yesterday of those kind of like your notes and stuff like that as well?
Justin N (26:04) Jeffrey?
Kim Jackson (26:07) Yeah.
Justin N (26:09) I think one last call out is like, for example, I think Jeffrey was a really difficult edge case. I think this is a good example of.
Justin N (26:24) We see all of Jeffrey’s licenses here prior in the top report, we couldn’t see that you see the dapt license in Pennsylvania, you see the PT license in pa, and then this license in Delaware. Whereas if you go on the top, obviously, I’ll revert back to having the license information. You won’t see the dapt license appear here because of the limitations of the report. But if you wanted more information on Jeffrey, like I said, put his name here. And at the bottom, it’ll show all his license information.
Ashley Moore (26:55) Well, in the report as is, it did show both licenses just not in the exact correct field. So I think that’s kind of why the mindset of reverting back where we still have access to that data on the report, it may not be in the exact field but it’s still there.
Justin N (27:12) Yeah. Yep. For sure. And one quick note, I want to make sure I’m clear on next steps when it comes to primary license. I know James said he will go the tech support route and that’ll take its own trajectory and hopefully we can get squared away. There, is there still a case where in this report, you wanted to add a filter and say I chose filter primary location, show me the licenses associated with that location… because I can then add a filter for I mean that might be overkill because let’s say, for example, I think Jeffrey is a good case to work on where you see primary location is this ortho in broad street, pa, if I then say I know his primary state is pa, I can use this and then go down here. And now, boom the… license is associated with that primary location or here anyway kind of thing. So definitely… I think the tech support route in my opinion is the best way to go instead of trying to complicate the report even more. And next steps should just be work on malpractice information and revert back to adding the license information in this provider roster even if it wasn’t in the correct order as long as it’s there, it’s best case scenario.
Ashley Moore (28:38) Yeah, I agree. And then if the tech support goes through and it’s all good news and they’re able to add that filter in that’s when we want to make a change, to only add that column into the report and possibly discuss any further logic.
Justin N (28:55) Yep, for sure. Definitely. And then in general, if there’s any other follow ups on a report or any more custom reporting, you can still send it over to James and it’s my job to work on it as well.
James Donachie (29:10) Awesome. Yeah. Let’s do that because I know there’s a lot on the reports and you guys are going to use them filter, figure out what’s working, what’s not there. And then I’ll… work on that primary ticket. I’m going to fingers crossed. Nick and I are on a hot streak. So we’re going to get that in there, but,
Nic Schisler (29:35) I.
James Donachie (29:36) think and then we can talk more about this on Tuesday. Give us a couple days for you guys to go in there. And then we have this feedback loop with Justin. He’s our Guy. And so I think this is a great spot to where… we’re at right now.
Justin N (29:54) Yep. Any comments, questions, suggestions, follow ups, send them over and James and Nick and I will do whatever it takes to make it work and good.
Ashley Moore (30:08) Yeah, we appreciate you guys so much. This has been great.
Nic Schisler (30:12) Ashley, Morty, if you like, we’re in a much, better spot than we were like a couple of months ago when we.
Ashley Moore (30:18) Why are you asking me?
Justin N (30:20) I just, and the hot seat we are definitely.
Ashley Moore (30:24) 100 percent, we’re in a much better spot with the reporting 100 percent. Yeah, Justin’s done great.
Nic Schisler (30:30) Obviously, we have some things to still deliver and Justin, we owe it all to you. So thank you. But let James and I continue to maybe have some internal conversations and kind of press where we can press and continue to help you all. Okay?
Ashley Moore (30:45) Yeah, thanks Nick.
Nic Schisler (30:48) James. Anything else before we get back to doing what we do?
James Donachie (30:51) No, that’s it. I’ll send an update. And then like I said, all feedback is good feedback which you guys are great at providing. So chat with everyone soon.
Nic Schisler (31:04) Thanks, everyone. Talk soon. Bye.
James Donachie (31:06) Guys. Bye.