Transcript
Connor Morley (00:00) hey, everyone. All right. Looks like we have them in the waiting room. Eunice. Are you good to get started with the questions on the committee structure? Yeah. Okay, great. And then we’ll dive into the case logs conversation with them. We’ll get an update to them on the delegated cred… agreement. And Adalee, do you have any other questions on the template or the roster templates? No?
Adalee Arreola (00:39) I don’t have any questions at this point. We just are.
Eunice Choi (00:42) At.
Adalee Arreola (00:44) that point where we want to be able to generate a sample roster?
Elizabeth Baker (00:48) For.
Adalee Arreola (00:49) them. And so I can do the configuration, but I don’t believe that we’ll be able to generate accurate data.
Alicia Iannece (00:57) For those rosters?
Connor Morley (01:00) Yeah, let’s talk with harmony about how we can do that because it sounds like the full end to end workflow isn’t done yet.
Adalee Arreola (01:06) Yeah. All right.
Connor Morley (01:07) I’m letting them in.
Connor Morley (01:21) Hey, Alicia. Hey, Jenny. Hey, Marsha.
Alicia Iannece (01:24) Good morning.
Connor Morley (01:26) Good morning. Are we waiting on anyone else? We?
Alicia Iannece (01:33) Can go ahead and get started. I’m not sure if Pete is joining and Julie is not joining today, okay?
Connor Morley (01:39) No problem. So, I wanted to start with, we have Eunice who’s a designer on our team. We wanted to, we’re building some new functionality with the credentialing module and wanted to ask you some questions on your committee structure. I know we, I’ve shared the committee structure along with the committee assignments… with her, but I’m going to pass it on to Eunice right now.
Eunice Choi (02:12) Hi, everyone. Good morning. Yeah. So I’m Eunice, I’m the designer that’s on the privileging team. Thanks for having me here. I know I have a lot of questions, but we also have a lot on the agenda, so we can dive right in. So really the focus for the next 10 minutes is going to be less on the committee structure, sorry, Connor, but more about understanding a new workflow that we’re introducing, which is around deferrals, so we understand that there’s a world where committee members, you vote on a provider’s application to approve or to reject or deny. But there’s also a third world where it is about deferring the committee’s not yet ready to vote. So just wanted to double check on some of the ways that we understand it and make sure that we’re building it out correctly. So, yeah, good number of questions. I’ll start with voting logic real quick. So let me share my screen. So we just have something to look at and then go from there.
Eunice Choi (03:15) Great. So first, I’d love to talk about the idea of like voting logic. So we’re planning to give members three options. When they’re casting their vote, I approve. I reject or I defer, just wanted to check like does that match what you’d expect? Are there any other options that you expect to be in there or does that feel right? With especially with the focus being on defer, being its own option that you can vote on?
Alicia Iannece (03:42) So, I think it makes sense to have the defer option… you know, typically when we’re reviewing as a committee, it’s rare that we have to get to a vote of the entire committee. So I think just having that defer option is really good. The only other maybe scenario I can think of which is kind of similar would be if maybe there was an approval but with like limitation of what was initially requested and it would be really important to capture that correctly. So, you know, whether the platform would do that. I’m sure we would do it in our minutes and that would satisfy whatever is needed because I don’t know if different, you know, different organizations might do it differently, but I really think if there’s some opportunity to maybe build that out as well, I would consider that.
Eunice Choi (04:40) Gotcha. And when we say limitations, is that really where voting on requested privileges? Is that where it comes into play?
Alicia Iannece (04:47) Yeah. Got it. And it requires a very, you know, close relationship sense of attention because then all of the legal requirements come into play with, you know, correct the appropriate course of action and all of that. And that can be bylaws dependent too. But I think it’s pretty standardized as far as, you know, what the legal requirements are for allowing medical staff to appeal and things like that. So, yeah, I think if there were some mention of limitations, you know, if we put it in, if they were just to add a note in the rationale that might be sufficient and we could just come up with standard language to do that. But that’s also a very rare scenario too. So again, I don’t know that it would happen very often and be, I don’t know how meaningful it would be depending on how much time you have to put into it. Yeah.
Elizabeth Baker (05:38) Alicia, I’m just trying to understand. Hi, this is Liz baker. Hi, dr. Baker. Hi, I’m just popping in here without having any context. So I did read the agenda. Okay? Is this for like Alicia? I don’t see this replacing the committee voting that happens.
Alicia Iannece (05:52) No, no, this would be just for the platform to support what might happen in committee. And if you would hop down late, Eunice was explaining. They’re working on this as a build right now. I think for all of medallion, maybe not necessarily just for us and wanted our opinion.
Elizabeth Baker (06:08) Okay. Yeah. I guess I mean, if you need like we only need a quorum in order to be able to have a vote. So, I see it going two ways. You either have like I approve or reject or I recuse myself, maybe because there might be, if it’s your file. Like if I’m a committee member, would I ever be sent my file to look at? They?
Alicia Iannece (06:29) Shouldn’t be, we have it set up differently? Okay?
Elizabeth Baker (06:33) So, I guess I don’t know if we’d actually ever defer a vote via this. That would be like we just wouldn’t bring it up for.
Alicia Iannece (06:39) Vote.
Elizabeth Baker (06:41) Okay.
Alicia Iannece (06:46) Well, I guess we have sometimes taken files and then given it one additional month to look at and, you know, maybe we had to follow up on something additional and the committee didn’t want to approve it until we.
Elizabeth Baker (07:00) Were just not voting then. So I think it’s like we’re either going to vote or not vote. Okay? That’d be my recommendation to simplify that.
Eunice Choi (07:08) I see. Okay. Also quick language check is reject or deny more natural in your world?
Elizabeth Baker (07:21) Probably. So like, yeah, we’re either approving the application or denying it is the terminology.
Eunice Choi (07:27) Gotcha. Okay. And then again, back to logic like what if we do introduce the concept of deferring? And then, you know, it’s actually like an option that members can vote on. I guess we get into the world where there could be like a split vote where there’s not like a clear like majority, what kind of happens in that case?
Elizabeth Baker (07:53) Dr. Baker, can you, yeah, that’s an extremely rare scenario. Okay? So, I would say that from a logic perspective, the.
Elizabeth Baker (08:05) Again, this is where I’m not sure how necessary it is. I understand what you guys are trying to do like, you know, build like a kind of a tele voting option here for our purposes, we require in person or, you know, we do allow like a remote telepresence… for some… but that vote happens verbally. Gotcha. Okay.
Eunice Choi (08:33) So, yeah, I’m not, I don’t.
Elizabeth Baker (08:36) know if I can help you build logic for other locations we’re smaller.
Alicia Iannece (08:40) Yeah, we’re smaller. So we only require like we’re only going to require a vote documented in the platform from our service chief and our president. So like this is looking like it would be the entire committee voting, right? And reviewing every file so that our workflow would be a little bit different. And we, if we did have to get to a vote, we would document that in our minutes instead of in the platform. Probably.
Eunice Choi (09:06) Got it. So in the case of like a tie, yeah, gotcha. Yeah. What about in the world of a tie? Sorry?
Elizabeth Baker (09:15) Sorry, go ahead. A tie would be again, a very rare I’m not even sure exactly what our protocol would be. I’d have to look at our bylaws that’d be a bylaws dependent, who would cast the determining vote?
Eunice Choi (09:29) Gotcha. Okay. I think it is very interesting to hear the idea that instead of like deferring being kind of its own voting option, maybe really what happens is at least for you guys offline, you’re deciding to not vote essentially and then waiting until a decision is made, the thing of.
Elizabeth Baker (09:47) It more is like the scenario is an application is either complete fully and ready for presentation to the group or if we defer something, it’s because we’re considering approving something without a piece of information. But maybe the community members decide they would rather see that piece of information and have that file be more complete before a vote happens.
Eunice Choi (10:07) Gotcha. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then let’s see. I also know that I’m hitting my 10 minutes soon… in… the case that?
Elizabeth Baker (10:26) I mean, we.
Eunice Choi (10:26) are thinking of like supporting a different workflow and like you said, that it could depend depending on, you know, how different teams set it up, how in different ways the team set it up. But usually when the committee does decide to defer, is it expected that a new voting round is going to be logged? So you want to see the record of what happened in the first vote? And then it kind of comes for a revote. Is that the proper way to think about it? I.
Alicia Iannece (10:55) Think typically, we, if we defer it, then we didn’t vote.
Elizabeth Baker (10:59) You know, we didn’t vote that first?
Alicia Iannece (11:01) Time and then it just goes for a formal vote once it’s determined that the application is fully ready, you know, and that clarifying information has been received.
Eunice Choi (11:10) I see. Okay. And my last question that I want to ask is something that’s a little bit more future facing. So we also want, we also plan to build out a way to vote on privileges. There’s a lot more understanding we want to do around that later on. But one question I had was when committee members are actively voting, you know, on the appointment status and on privileges, how often are members referencing the credentialing file? Like is it something that they’re going back to constantly or is it more of an occasional reference? And I ask because it’ll help us figure out like how prominently to surface that.
Alicia Iannece (11:51) I think I might need a little more context to understand. I think.
Elizabeth Baker (11:58) I know what you’re saying. So, you know, how we do it here is like a file is presented by one of our service chiefs, meaning it’s been reviewed and if there’s been any concerns, it’s discussed, but you want to know, would all of the voting members want to see what those flagged concerns were?
Elizabeth Baker (12:19) Yeah. I don’t know if that’s something that like Jenny would drive, if she could pull the file up versus having everyone have access to the files. That’s a good question. Yeah, I know some providers would, or some of our mec members would like to see the file and some would maybe not have a strong preference. So if you’re going to build the potential, I think that’s you know, that would be a good thing.
Eunice Choi (12:44) Yeah, because we, we’re thinking like, you know, if we have the ability to show the credentialing file today. And also notes that tend to be a form of dialogue between could be a form of dialogue between admins and what providers that our committee members can see. But it’s like we could go with two approaches. One is kind of being there as needed versus something that’s more side by side. And, you know, when you’re voting on privileges, is it really helpful to have that or is it actually just this approach would be simple enough? I see.
Alicia Iannece (13:18) So, having the file in view at the time that you’re voting if.
Eunice Choi (13:22) That’s useful. Yes, that just.
Elizabeth Baker (13:25) Has to be tracked. So, you know, these files are extremely, you know, confidential. And so I just wouldn’t want access to anyone at any point in time. It would only be in the context of a vote. Yeah.
Alicia Iannece (13:39) I think it’d be specific to, the committee view.
Elizabeth Baker (13:42) Okay. My.
Alicia Iannece (13:43) Thought regarding that, like from a medical staff coordinator standpoint would be, you know, the medical staff coordinator might flag things in the notes, but want to be able to confirm that the committee member did in fact review those flags just to verify that somebody, some medical staff leadership has reviewed that. So, you know, having the notes page and sending it to the committee member at this point and then voting on it that’s our, you know, interpretation of they’ve reviewed the file and they’ve confirmed those elements. But if there was, you know, not to create more steps or work. But if there was some click, you know, click easy thing to say reviewed, you know, no concerns or if they wanted to put their own notes in to prompt them to do so, you know, that might be something that would be beneficial to the platform and dr baker, if you have thoughts on, that would be, yeah, I’m thinking like an acknowledged.
Connor Morley (14:43) Yeah.
Alicia Iannece (14:43) Flag acknowledged or something like that. Yeah, so that we can guarantee that what we are flagging is definitely reviewed, you know, if it’s something concerning or discrepancies that need to be called out. Okay? And they.
Eunice Choi (14:59) Acknowledge it coming from the member. Yes. Okay. Understood.
Connor Morley (15:05) Great. I know.
Eunice Choi (15:06) My time minutes is up. So I wish we could have talked more, but I also want to make sure there’s enough time for everything else on the agenda. So, yeah, thank you.
Alicia Iannece (15:14) So much. Thank you. I love giving feedback. So happy to help anytime.
Eunice Choi (15:17) Love getting it. Yeah, thank you so much.
Connor Morley (15:20) Great. Thanks, Eunice. A couple other things I wanted to touch on specifically around credentialing. So, the high priority packets have been put together and marked as high priority for reappointments. Jennifer Peterson, Violet lacan, Adam fiege, Joseph Lawton, Alana, Greer, Elizabeth baker, those are the ones that we called out as high priority.
Alicia Iannece (15:47) And I think we have two new ones, the new appointments that we didn’t talk about yesterday, Jenny and I added those and also added them as high priority. Yep.
Connor Morley (15:55) Trusheel Shaw and Colleen, Elliott mccandles, yes.
Jennifer (15:59) Alicia, I think we’re missing Ken Olson? Oh,
Alicia Iannece (16:02) yes, Ken Olson?
Jennifer (16:03) He’s actually the most one that would need it. He’s a five, one effective date. So.
Alicia Iannece (16:11) What’s how do you spell?
Connor Morley (16:12) The last name?
Jennifer (16:13) Olson, o LS o N. Okay.
Connor Morley (16:15) And… Olsen. Okay. I’ll add that and tag that as a high priority. One thing I did want to mention as well for the credentialing packets. So, we have the list. We’ve added the CPR certifications to the credentialing packet for the BLS als pals, all of that information, and we talked with the team about the immunizations as well for reappointments versus initials. One thing that we are not going to be able to put in the packet. I know that you requested it is case logs. And the reasoning why is because we’re not handled to be… able to accept case logs because of the risk with Khi, even if it’s redacted within the case logs, we’re… just not set up to be able to store and process that. Right now. It is on our roadmap for either Q3 or Q4 of this year, and we can let you know when that changes. But in terms of the process, we can’t include case logs in medallion. So I wanted to talk through if it’s possible that you would be able to pull the case logs for those credentialing packets outside of medallion.
Alicia Iannece (17:42) Yeah, I.
Jennifer (17:42) can do that. Connor. So it would.
Alicia Iannece (17:44) be that we would just completely do it separately from medallion like an email.
Connor Morley (17:50) It would have to be stored outside of medallion. Okay. Yes. So.
Alicia Iannece (17:55) We couldn’t put it in the packet like in the notes you?
Connor Morley (17:59) Can’t put it in the notes in the packet and what?
Alicia Iannece (18:02) Was your comment on the phi? Just so I can be sure I heard correctly?
Connor Morley (18:07) It’s just that we’re not set up to accept any patient information even if it’s redacted?
Connor Morley (18:17) We’re worried about infosec risks on our side. Okay?
Alicia Iannece (18:27) Okay. Yeah. Typically, what’s included in a case log is maybe a procedure name and the date the procedure was performed, and the provider who performed it… that’s I think the bare minimum of what goes into it, we typically don’t include more or maybe the number of procedures that were performed in a timeframe if the date isn’t included?
Alicia Iannece (18:56) Alicia?
Jennifer (18:56) And maybe we can talk more offline if you want to. But just bringing up, I’m not, do you think that the health requirements like… or not the education… that we have in there like the CPR training and all that. Do you think that’s going to hold up the file? No?
Alicia Iannece (19:17) We’ve done most of the work for those already. So I’m not really concerned about those and the ones that are employed, we can waive them. Okay? Well, Connor, I did already start using the language about waiving things. So, I’m going to just see how that goes, but, you know, just so we can make it, you know, try to keep things rolling for these ones that need to get done that I’m putting in the notes like this is okay to waive, because we monitor this in a separate platform, you know, for employed providers. Like I’m just giving my reasoning right in the notes. Okay. Yeah, I.
Connor Morley (19:50) appreciate you adding that if we need any like different kind of language to include that, I’ll let you know, but I haven’t heard back on that. If we need to change it. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. All right. And so it sounds like we all set with case logs. Any other questions? I know that?
Connor Morley (20:17) It sounds like you, would you be able to pull that information and bring it to the committee?
Alicia Iannece (20:22) Yeah. We will just email it separately for now and that’s fine. I think I’d definitely be curious, you know, about future conversations to figure out how to get it in because it would be ideal to fit right with the packet yep.
Connor Morley (20:38) Understood. And I can bring that feedback back to our product team, okay?
Mcoffman (20:43) But, right.
Connor Morley (20:44) Now… I’m being told we cannot have.
Mcoffman (20:48) It in medallion.
Alicia Iannece (20:50) Connor, is there a place that we could at least acknowledge that RMC has collected and approved? Like even… just like checkbox that case log? Oh, like a statement, yeah, that we’ve reviewed case logs, we can.
Connor Morley (21:04) You can include it in the notes of the credentialing packet that you’ve reviewed the case logs without actually including the case logs in the packet within medallion… just, you know, for documentation’s sake. So, for building.
Alicia Iannece (21:20) on the committee side, that would be really cool if case logs could be included there. Somehow, you know, as an acknowledgement and even if they were sent separately, you know, just having like I received, case logs not applicable or, you know, something like that just because it is so closely tied to privileges. Yeah… understood. Cool.
Connor Morley (21:46) Okay. Eunice, that one might have been for you right right there?
Mcoffman (21:53) Yeah, I heard that.
Connor Morley (21:58) Okay. Just going through the rest of the agenda… Nick, do you have a quick update on the delegated agreement?
Nic Schisler (22:10) Yeah. Alicia, I think merit was going to work on regenerating a clean document for me. I bumped her last week and I bumped her again today because I hadn’t heard anything Connor. I think you’re part of that thread. Yeah… but she’s working on creating a clean document in regards to your first question about, I think removing the offshore piece that was highlighted. So she’s working on that. And then in regards to your other question, I think about board certification, monitoring.
Nic Schisler (22:47) How are these tracked updated from the thread? We have. It sounds like the system will just set a notification to practitioners when they have a document expiring, but we don’t enforce them adding anything unless it’s during a credentialing request. So once she has a clean document, I’ll respond back to our email thread with those answers and then from there, we should be in a pretty good spot hopefully to move forward with signatures. Okay? I’m hoping to have that to you by the.
Connor Morley (23:14) end of the day today. Okay? I.
Nic Schisler (23:17) was just literally on a call with her an hour ago. I’ll keep you updated though. Okay. Sounds good.
Mcoffman (23:28) Thanks, Nick. You’re welcome.
Nic Schisler (23:32) Sorry, it’s taking so long. Usually these are a little quicker but I know merit has a lot on her plate, so appreciate your patience as we work through it as long.
Alicia Iannece (23:39) As we’re working and getting the files done.
Nic Schisler (23:41) Making progress. I’m pushing as hard as we can. I think the slack thread is open is finally up to like 56 messages now. So it’s a record? Great.
Alicia Iannece (23:54) Well, I love setting records.
Mcoffman (23:59) Okay.
Connor Morley (24:01) So we do have Adalee… do we have an estimate and we can take and we can follow up on this. But on the delegated roster templates, do you need any other additional information there?
Alicia Iannece (24:20) I’ll jump in on that real quick. Sorry, yesterday, we spoke and you guys wanted the other ones, Marsha had sent one out, but availity is also a roster for no surprises act and we learned that there are several payers that may use that roster, but we don’t know for sure, but we had at least five or six payers, I.
Mcoffman (24:40) did look into that a little bit more, Alicia, that availity roster is exactly the same as the anthem one I sent. And so when I did more looking on that, I believe that anthem is, I mean, the portal availity portal is… available… for multiple insurances where you can see claims and you see patient, you know, you can see patients and things like that. But I believe for… credentialing and updating your patients, I believe right now, anthem is the only one that does it there.
Nic Schisler (25:27) So,
Mcoffman (25:29) may be why they had an anthem roster. At least that’s the only one we are of the ones that we are contracted with. So, but… that was, but the question we had also is that if they had access to availity to do anthem credentialing, because that’s where you have to do your anthem credentialing?
Connor Morley (25:59) As in, would our team have access to availity?
Mcoffman (26:01) Right. Yes. Yeah. And Rheta?
Connor Morley (26:04) Correct me if I’m wrong here, but we typically, whenever you make requests for those, we do request access to availity as like a surrogate.
Mcoffman (26:14) Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. So I was going to say that’s a pretty popular portal that is used by multiple insurances. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Our team.
Rheta Larson (26:25) Will definitely have access to availity. And we’ll set up the proper provider admin tasks to gain access as applicable for?
Alicia Iannece (26:34) Those payers.
Mcoffman (26:38) Yeah. And I can’t.
Alicia Iannece (26:38) recall that any tasks have come through to give them access. So do they potentially just have the right access already to do those? Or maybe they haven’t done worked on any of those yet?
Rheta Larson (26:52) I can double check some of those requests.
Alicia Iannece (26:55) To see if they’re held.
Rheta Larson (26:58) Up with anything, but typically payers that use availity, they’ll just set up the org access from my understanding, but, I can go through some of those open payers and just check to see if any are pending that information?
Mcoffman (27:19) It should be anthem for sure. I mean, I just remember from our, from even the hospital providers that we just had to add to our group, you know, and not do.
Jennifer (27:31) Full, we had to still do that through availity.
Rheta Larson (27:38) I’ll look at the specific anthem ones. Okay? And I know while we’re talking about that, I’m sorry, I might have missed this, but for the Molina and anthem templates, did those get sent over for review?
Alicia Iannece (27:52) They did get sent over last week, Rheta. I’m sorry, I didn’t touch base with you. Okay? And then when Marsha identified the availity roster, we thought that might be preferred but it’s the same as the anthem one. Yeah.
Jennifer (28:04) It’s the same thing. I looked at it. Okay, gotcha.
Rheta Larson (28:08) I will take a look at those and provide those to the team as well. And then we’ll get back to you on that outstanding question for review.
Rheta Larson (28:20) Thanks, Rheta, Connor.
Jennifer (28:23) Can I ask a question real quick? I just want to bring it back up. I know Alicia touched base with me this morning on it, but I’m still, I still would like to challenge of why.
Alicia Iannece (28:35) We need.
Jennifer (28:37) Past malpractice before they’re here. It doesn’t make sense because we’ve never needed that in the past and our cbos never needed that in the past. And it’s nothing we need for joint commission and I feel like it could potentially hold up a file from going forward.
Rheta Larson (28:58) So,
Jennifer (28:59) can you help me understand a little bit more of why we need to have malpractice before that provider was here?
Connor Morley (29:11) Yeah, I might lean on Rheta a little bit for this one, but I believe it’s definitely a requirement for payer… enrollment to have a full list of their malpractice even.
Jennifer (29:24) If it’s not active.
Alicia Iannece (29:26) I don’t know about that though because we’ve.
Jennifer (29:28) only ever.
Alicia Iannece (29:29) Supplied a current malpractice or the one that’s.
Rheta Larson (29:33) expected.
Alicia Iannece (29:34) To cover them, you know, if we’re enrolling them for future enrollment, like a brand new provider, right? Then we’re submitting a malpractice for them for that future start date. We don’t provide anything from the past, and we don’t I mean, once they’re employed by us, yes, we maintain those records of current malpractice and past malpractice of when they were working for us, right? But we haven’t done anything outside of when they’re working for us. Yeah, it doesn’t make.
Jennifer (30:10) sense to even have that. Sorry, I was just going to.
Rheta Larson (30:16) Ask, is this specific to payers like payer enrollment requests or are you also referencing for credentialing or recredentialing requests?
Jennifer (30:24) Both. We’ve never needed past, yeah.
Alicia Iannece (30:28) So, the profile in general is marking the malpractice profile tab like in the profile as incomplete even though we have a current malpractice listed and a document of it, but there are not documents of past malpractice history. And was it Shaw, Jenny, that we were looking at? Trucial? Shaw? He’s a brand new provider for us. So we, technically, we don’t need record of those past malpractices.
Jennifer (30:54) Oh, he was the one that was complete, I think wasn’t he, Alicia… I don’t remember, but anyway, yeah, we’ve never needed it Marcia, have you ever had to do a past one before they were employed with us?
Rheta Larson (31:14) Yeah, I can double check.
Jennifer (31:15) With both teams.
Rheta Larson (31:20) I know specifically the Coi, we collect that for compliance. And if we need something in that field. So you are attaching the Coi with a future date. Is that the way I understand it, it’s not like a current date. Is that what you said? It’s the one that’s expected for their hire date? Yeah.
Alicia Iannece (31:39) Sometimes it’s a current one and it’s currently active, but sometimes we might input.
Jennifer (31:46) One that’s.
Alicia Iannece (31:48) going to be in the future. I don’t think we’ve done that yet in the platform.
Jennifer (31:52) Okay.
Rheta Larson (31:53) Gotcha. Yeah. I know that is something… that we have to collect to maintain compliance and then also just not put medallion or your organization’s organization at risk, but I can double check with the teams just to be sure especially from the payer side, if not, if it’s something that you are expressing, you don’t need, I can work with them to set that up in platform so that they’re aware. Okay, we shouldn’t have to collect this moving forward, but I do believe we need some sort of delegation agreement or something along those lines that we… are not delegated to this verification, if that helps.
Jennifer (32:39) I think that would, I just like I said, Marsha has been here for years and she’s never had to do it and I, you know, I just don’t think it’s anything we’ve had to do at all. So, and we’ve been compliant. Okay. Yeah.
Alicia Iannece (32:53) That’s good to know if there’s a, if there is an ncqa requirement or a joint commission, right? That, you know, that’s you know, basing off of this, please send it my way. Yeah.
Jennifer (33:02) Exactly. Definitely. Yeah.
Alicia Iannece (33:04) I.
Rheta Larson (33:04) definitely will cause I know at least from a medallion standpoint that’s specifically the risk that we take on. So like I want to ensure we’re compliant there, but I will follow up with the teams and get you the exact verbiage or the exact info for that sure. And.
Alicia Iannece (33:19) Based on Connor’s email, cause we talked about this a month ago, I think, and Connor’s response was, you know, it’s ensuring that there are no gaps in coverage. So, I could potentially see this as being like a best practice in the credentialing world that potentially, you know, it’s a, it might help identify a gap or a concern, but typically a gap results from an npdb result or something, you know, like there might be other, you know, red flags. So I’m wondering if it’s a best practice that it is.
Jennifer (33:56) Additional.
Alicia Iannece (33:57) you know, verification, but it may not be a requirement. Does?
Jennifer (34:01) That make sense? Yeah, it does.
Rheta Larson (34:04) I think I have what I need if I need something, I’ll email you on, that piece, but I can take that back.
Alicia Iannece (34:14) To the team. Sounds great. Thank you.
Rheta Larson (34:19) And from the are y’all, placing placeholders there, I just want to.
Connor Morley (34:23) Confirm that. Are you putting?
Alicia Iannece (34:25) We haven’t yet. Jenny deleted them out of dr baker’s and I said, hold on, let’s wait and see what to do. Don’t do it on anybody else yet? So we deleted them out of dr baker’s, but.
Jennifer (34:36) they’re still there in the document. So it doesn’t fully get rid of them.
Alicia Iannece (34:39) Yeah. So, yeah, but if we don’t have a document, if we delete it, then we wouldn’t have any record and we did see that on one provider. Was it?
Connor Morley (34:47) Gosh, it’s one of.
Alicia Iannece (34:48) the ones that are processing right now, it might’ve been Clifton, it’s someone who’s not employed by us. So, I think it’s.
Connor Morley (34:55) Clifton, where maybe.
Alicia Iannece (34:56) They have several historical records and they don’t have documents included, but they do have the current one and we do have the file for that one. So that’s what we minimally need.
Rheta Larson (35:08) I’ll use that one also as an example. And Shaw, I think you had provided that one too.
Alicia Iannece (35:14) Yeah, Shaw’s is showing us that he’s completed that his malpractice is acceptable or verified.
Connor Morley (35:22) Got it.
Rheta Larson (35:22) Thank you for sharing those details.
Connor Morley (35:30) One additional piece I wanted to follow up with was the practitioner’s rights that we talked about yesterday. So the right to review information submitted to support their credentialing application, correct erroneous information and to receive the status of their credentialing or recredentialing application upon request. So within when they log into medallion, they do have all of those rights to view all of that, those three kind of areas. I think when I took this back to our team, they did say that the actual… notification of those practitioner rights is not technically delegated to medallion. So if that is something that you would want to delegate to us, we’d need to like partner with our engineering to build that out… isn’t it?
Alicia Iannece (36:27) Something that we put into our welcome letter.
Connor Morley (36:30) Like the.
Alicia Iannece (36:31) welcome email that like inviting them to the platform. Yeah, because I noticed that on someone else, I can’t remember what one, but Jenny got something for, you know, a notification from somebody that they were working or it might have been from a payer that they were working with another cvo and it was Symplr and they had, they actually had the practitioner rights listed right there. I was like, oh, funny. So it was, yeah.
Connor Morley (36:58) Or in a,
Alicia Iannece (36:59) profile data attestation or something like, I am aware that I have access and I can request, you… know, information if needed.
Connor Morley (37:11) I think in order to get it added to this like one of these attestations, it might take a little longer, but if you want us to add it to the welcome letter, I think that would be a much faster way to.
Alicia Iannece (37:25) Go. Okay. I’ll send you that language then. Does that sound good? Sure, maybe like a little snippet of what to add?
Connor Morley (37:33) Yeah. Okay.
Alicia Iannece (37:34) Sounds great. Connor.
Jennifer (37:35) Since we’re in this area, I’m sorry, I don’t want to be a pain another.
Alicia Iannece (37:40) Question we had, so.
Jennifer (37:42) The first page of that, we’ve talked about this before for the signature right beside, it has that initial piece and every single new person misses that almost and it’s time consuming for me to have to reach out and say, hey, you didn’t see this, but yeah, they don’t see that initial piece. So if there’s any way we can either make it a different color or get rid of it, I don’t know, but if you can look into, that would be great.
Connor Morley (38:09) Yeah. Adalee, is this something that’s in our standard form mapping? Is that something that we could potentially adjust? I can check this.
Adalee Arreola (38:21) Seems like.
Connor Morley (38:21) Maybe there’s.
Adalee Arreola (38:23) something that we can add that will make it more like, you know, flag it there because I can see that it could potentially be easy to miss.
Alicia Iannece (38:30) Yeah, like if they missed it to highlight it, then after, you know, like how somebody can try to click through and then they’ll be like, no, you missed something and it’s like highlighted red, then that would be perfect. Yeah.
Connor Morley (38:41) And specific, specifically, this right here where my mouse is, right?
Jennifer (38:47) Yep.
Alicia Iannece (38:49) Yeah, it’s the gray.
Connor Morley (38:52) Doesn’t really help them?
Adalee Arreola (38:54) No, I agree. I can see if that’s something that I can help with configuring if not, we can definitely put in a product feedback on this.
Alicia Iannece (39:03) Thank you. So.
Connor Morley (39:04) Much. Okay.
Alicia Iannece (39:08) On that note on that same page with… the reappointment and new appointment application. Well, maybe not the new appointments. It probably won’t apply there as much, but with the reappointments?
Connor Morley (39:22) My notes.
Alicia Iannece (39:22) Back and forth with someone on the medallion team on a file, was that they need to go in and reattest? And I said on which page, you know, which section do we reattest? And I sent all four. So they said to do it on the profile data attestation, but with the reappointment application, would it be possible to flag that back as like unsigned to prompt them to sign it again?
Connor Morley (39:45) We can create like a provider task for that to let them know to re, sign the profile data attestation?
Alicia Iannece (39:54) Okay.
Connor Morley (39:56) Okay.
Alicia Iannece (39:57) Yeah, because I guess it’s.
Connor Morley (40:00) similar.
Alicia Iannece (40:00) I feel like it’s similar to when the like professional history was marked green. But then when we realized references was needed, that flipped back to marking or being marked as not complete yet. So, I didn’t know if when we prompt the reappointment application to happen, can that profile data attestation be prompted open or undone again, to be re.
Connor Morley (40:24) Signed. Yeah, let me double check that to see… if we can’t reflip, that Adalee, I might have to talk with you about those configuration updates, but I don’t know.
Connor Morley (40:45) Even if we,
Alicia Iannece (40:46) send them a task and say, hey, do your profile data attestation, they’ll go to the agreement section and they’ll say there’s four things and they all have green check marks. Which one do I, do you know? Like they’ll still be confused, want to make it as simple as possible for providers?
Alicia Iannece (41:03) Verify. It was just the one at the bottom that would need to be redone?
Connor Morley (41:09) Not like a 90.
Alicia Iannece (41:09) Day requirement, not every 90 days, but within 90 days of the application for reappointment is that kind of that ncqa requirement? It was new last year, I believe.
Connor Morley (41:25) I believe it starts whenever the re, credentialing opens, which is 90 days before the.
Alicia Iannece (41:31) Appointment deadline. Okay. Sounds good.
Connor Morley (41:37) Flip the profile out of station incomplete when the re, appointments are upcoming and adding a provided… task?
Connor Morley (41:54) Yep. No problem. So, we have the high… priority re appointments incoming. It looks like a lot of the re credentials were also starting to come in. Adalee, we’ve loaded all of the re credentials, correct?
Alicia Iannece (42:14) That’s correct? Yeah.
Connor Morley (42:19) And Adalee, I did want to talk to you as well because it looked like for some of them, some of them didn’t pull in automatically to the like these Jennifer Peterson violent Leconte, like their re, credentialing dates are coming up within may… or June may or June, either one of those… where’s the deadline there, it is.
Connor Morley (42:45) Yeah, may Ish, but it didn’t look like they pulled in. So we just added them in here. So, let me follow up with you to see why that was the case.
Alicia Iannece (42:57) Okay. Yeah, maybe.
Adalee Arreola (42:58) There’s some configuration that.
Connor Morley (43:00) We need to.
Adalee Arreola (43:01) Switch or something like that, but, yeah, let’s take a deeper dive into these.
Jennifer (43:05) And then maybe you could take a peek at Ken Olson before Connor, that might help if she looks at that, because that one didn’t pull.
Connor Morley (43:13) Yeah, and would it be?
Connor Morley (43:18) update?
Alicia Iannece (43:18) The reappointment deadline to what we ideally want even though we know it’s a.
Connor Morley (43:23) Fast turnaround. What’s the, how fast of a turnaround?
Alicia Iannece (43:28) Well, these initial ones we were hoping to have done by like April first?
Connor Morley (43:33) I think or?
Alicia Iannece (43:34) April third at the latest?
Connor Morley (43:37) Okay. Bye bye.
Connor Morley (43:46) I’m going to ask the team to see if that’s something that they can prioritize, I know that they are working on them and they’re doing working on the verifications right now.
Alicia Iannece (43:53) Yeah.
Connor Morley (43:55) But, let… me double check those.
Alicia Iannece (43:59) Because our committee meeting’s the eighth. So they need a few days to.
Connor Morley (44:03) View them.
Alicia Iannece (44:04) Beforehand. Yep. Okay. And then when we actually, when we added the new appointments, the two high priority new appointments, we noticed that the privileges weren’t linking yet. So, is that a step that we should plan to do manually for this round?
Connor Morley (44:22) Adalee, those privileges. Yeah, Adalee, I think those privileges we talked about those being complete by the end of this week.
Alicia Iannece (44:28) Yeah, that’s right?
Adalee Arreola (44:30) I think they’ll be done by end of day, but definitely by end of week.
Alicia Iannece (44:35) And how will.
Connor Morley (44:36) we like… want to go check.
Alicia Iannece (44:39) on that, how will we see them? Will they be in the packet in the like in the reappointment request or where would we be able to see that it’s uploaded and correct and pulling now, like for these ones that we need to prioritize,
Connor Morley (44:56) so, with those privileging documents like… those dop forms, right? To confirm if they’re, correct. I’m just going to pull a random provider. Sorry, come on.
Alicia Iannece (45:12) You can put her in.
Connor Morley (45:14) Or she’s already in. She’s already, she’s already in as an existing request. So, let me edit this request. And here we go. So, here’s yeah.
Alicia Iannece (45:27) Okay. So when, so we should go in and click those. And now, are we doing that for reappointment as well? Or does it just automatically select what they had before?
Connor Morley (45:37) No, we’ll need to reselect these for the reappointments and the initials.
Alicia Iannece (45:41) Okay.
Connor Morley (45:44) So, Jenny, we can,
Alicia Iannece (45:44) maybe take a look at that after this call and start getting them in for those providers, and then will they receive?
Connor Morley (45:53) Will they receive a?
Alicia Iannece (45:53) Prompt to review that or what’s the workflow for the?
Connor Morley (45:57) Provider, yes, they would receive a prompt to look at that, and then to also fill it out and sign.
Alicia Iannece (46:03) Okay. And is it done electronically?
Connor Morley (46:06) Yeah, that’s the form mapping that we do to include like the E signatures and the choices so that they can click on the choices that are showing up on that form specific.
Alicia Iannece (46:16) Great. And we identified, we have an issue on our end with Adobe sign. They didn’t go through for some references for some of the first ones that went through. So, we’re working with rit to figure out next steps because we’ve had to contact them to find the emails and send them out and forward them out. So they’re getting locked up in our security. I think it’s because they said it might be because it’s a very generic Adobe email that it’s coming from it’s Adobe.
Connor Morley (46:46) Adobe.
Jennifer (46:48) Or something. Yeah.
Alicia Iannece (46:49) It’s like very generic. And then I saw the name in here in the privileging tab, Jessica peel that’s who Jenny was working with back and forth to figure out what the issue was. So, Jessica had reached out appropriately to us to kind of figure out it’s saying an undeliverable, she was getting an undeliverable message. So, yeah.
Connor Morley (47:08) So, we need to work through.
Alicia Iannece (47:09) That a little bit. But so those will come this way as well. Is that what I’m understanding?
Connor Morley (47:14) Great.
Alicia Iannece (47:15) Peer references, well, the references, we know, and then the privilege forms would come the same way, right?
Connor Morley (47:22) Through Adobe sign?
Connor Morley (47:27) Is Adobe sign within medallion, Adalee, or is it something… else? Like, so these privileging documents would be signed within medallion, right? So I don’t know if it would come in through Adobe sign.
Alicia Iannece (47:50) So, on that note, we were thinking maybe we should test it out with our, Jennifer, Alicia, Jennifer, test one and see and send it to us and see how, see what it looks like and what we’re seeing.
Connor Morley (48:01) Is she active?
Alicia Iannece (48:02) Jenny, as if she exists, I think.
Jennifer (48:05) I just inactive.
Connor Morley (48:08) She’s deactivated, but we can always, you can reactivate her and then enter her into the privileging. Yeah, it.
Alicia Iannece (48:17) Might be good to just do it and so that we can see what’s coming through… it’s so, the email from Jessica said it was Jessica peel is requesting your, or requesting you to complete this document, but the email address was adobesign at adobesign. Com or something weird like that.
Connor Morley (48:38) Very generic.
Alicia Iannece (48:40) So, our, it is hesitant to whitelist it.
Connor Morley (48:43) Yeah, to.
Alicia Iannece (48:44) put it on the safe senders list. So, okay. Yeah, I’m just letting you know, and I’ll touch base with our, it leads to see if there’s any consideration.
Connor Morley (48:56) To.
Alicia Iannece (48:56) take there, but, yeah.
Connor Morley (48:59) Yeah, let me double check because from my understanding of the dop forms, it should be just like how they’re signing the attestations.
Alicia Iannece (49:07) Oh, okay. That would be great. Yeah. So, maybe it’s just the peer references.
Connor Morley (49:13) Okay.
Alicia Iannece (49:14) Yeah, that would be ideal to have them do it a medallion.
Connor Morley (49:20) Yeah. Let me triple check that.
Connor Morley (49:27) I can get back to you on that one. Hang on while I make note of that.
Connor Morley (50:06) I also made a note of the issue with the Adobe sign for the peer references too.
Alicia Iannece (50:12) Okay.
Connor Morley (50:19) For this group that’s all I had for today, I know we still have the running questions that we review on Tuesdays. Alicia, did we want to.
Jennifer (50:30) touch base on temp privileges at all before we end? Do we need to do anything specific?
Alicia Iannece (50:35) No, I think we’re keeping it manual for now Jimmy, you know, pulling what we have from the profile?
Connor Morley (50:42) Okay.
Jennifer (50:45) The like a complete application, so.
Alicia Iannece (50:55) Be whatever pulls into the packet, but,
Connor Morley (50:59) would.
Jennifer (50:59) there even be a packet then? Yeah.
Connor Morley (51:01) No, there would not. If you, so if we’re talking about temporary privileges, medallion can’t do temporary privileges and you can’t download the packet until it’s ready. Okay? So if you need to view information for temporary privileges, if you need to view information for temporary privileges, like verifications, you can still enter in the provider with as much information as you can and go to the provider profile and look at their verifications page to see, the verifications being run. But… medallion, we don’t currently support the temporary privilege, a temporary privilege workflow. So… I think.
Alicia Iannece (51:50) What we need to figure out, you know, Jenny had requested like you to send a copy of the application, right?
Alicia Iannece (52:02) Attempt privilege process or what it has been. So, typically, we used to have a paper application, right? That the cvo sent out and it was electronic if people could make it electronic. But typically some people filled it out on paper. But that.
Connor Morley (52:18) would.
Alicia Iannece (52:18) be like the initial application that was needing to be completed, so the provider needed to produce their information to us before we could go down the temporary privilege, right? Or process. So, my thought process on this is if we have a complete profile, we have an initial application started, right? Like technically, we have all of the information we need from them. We have all the green check marks or the necessary ones. And as long as we can do the verifications which you guys are doing for us as well. And as long as we can pull those, then we can produce a temporary privileges packet that we need to produce, but it would need to be the information from that completed profile. And so I think that’s where Jenny is saying like how do I get a copy of the application? Like it’s kind of that initial application?
Connor Morley (53:14) Request.
Alicia Iannece (53:14) that they’re submitting to us so that we can produce a packet?
Jennifer (53:21) We’re not going to have all the green checks either because we don’t need everything. Well, we don’t need all the,
Alicia Iannece (53:26) green checks for the appointment packet, but we do need all the green checks in the profile for them to have submitted their information to us of their work history and that they have references. And then we’re going to follow up on those references. Like they have to have produced that information to us before we can go down for temporary privileges. And we have like a minute minimum list, right? So, yeah, it might not necessarily be the complete profile… but my perspective on it moving forward is as long as they’ve done their profile and submitted it and attested then we can process temp privileges.
Connor Morley (54:05) So, however you guys can?
Alicia Iannece (54:07) Support us in that, like if we can pull an incomplete packet, but it’s got the information, you know, that we’ve minimally submitted even though the verifications aren’t there that is sufficient for temp privileges based on our bylaws?
Connor Morley (54:21) I don’t know if we can pull an incomplete packet however, I think.
Alicia Iannece (54:26) Well, we did on the ones that were glitching before you guys did that’s. How we did a couple. So, I think that’s why we’re thinking it’s possible, but maybe it’s something where maybe.
Connor Morley (54:40) We like,
Alicia Iannece (54:41) mark them ready. But then we flip them back into not ready. Once we get a copy of that incomplete packet. Would that be something to a possibility?
Connor Morley (54:50) I.
Alicia Iannece (54:51) feel like I’m hurting your brain today.
Connor Morley (54:55) So you,
Alicia Iannece (55:02) they would be in the initial appointment process, we would need to request an initial appointment on them and we would have that started in a perfect world scenario. I would have that request initiated at the same time in congruency when we are also accomplishing temporary privileges and we can do the temporary privileges, but we need to have some ability to pull the information out of medallion.
Connor Morley (55:28) Yeah. So I’m thinking of a couple different ways… to go about this. Give me one second because I just want to check something…
Alicia Iannece (55:54) My brain today… like we have the, I just clicked on Shaw in our privileging.
Alicia Iannece (56:04) he’s still an intake, but I can click on the packet button, and.
Connor Morley (56:10) It didn’t change.
Alicia Iannece (56:11) Anything on his, no?
Connor Morley (56:13) And you can generate the cred file PDF?
Alicia Iannece (56:16) Yes. Yeah. So that’s what I think we, that’s all I think we need really is to be able to generate what’s there so far and it’s the minimum information that they’ve submitted into their profile to an extent.
Connor Morley (56:31) Right? So if, that does sound like that… would be the solution. I just want to check one more thing really quickly.
Connor Morley (57:01) I think that would be the solution. I just want to check as well to make sure that generating that cred file PDF doesn’t mess up the current credentialing request.
Alicia Iannece (57:08) And process? Okay. So take note that I clicked on shots, then I didn’t generate, I didn’t generate the PDF, but I clicked on the packet link.
Connor Morley (57:16) Clicking on the packet link is fine. It’s the generating cred PDF. That’s what has me a little worried.
Alicia Iannece (57:23) Okay. Gotcha. I did not do that. Okay. Yeah. Let me well, and so we’re in a perfect, you know, time for Colleen, Elliott mccandless. We need to do hers. So we need to get her ready by Monday next Monday, which is five days away. We know we are not going to have a completed appointment. We’re not going to have a committee before then. So we do need to do temp privileges for her. So if we could attempt to generate a PDF from hers. And then if her stuff gets delayed a little bit like that’s not the end of the world because we’ll have temp privileges for her, so we could make her our Guinea pig.
Connor Morley (57:58) Okay. I just need to double check with the engineering team to see what.
Alicia Iannece (58:04) That.
Connor Morley (58:06) Would do if that does kind of change anything or if that does stop anything.
Alicia Iannece (58:15) Sounds good.
Connor Morley (58:23) Let me take that back and I know we’re at time and I apologize. I have to run.
Alicia Iannece (58:27) No problem.
Connor Morley (58:29) Thank you. Thanks everybody.
Jennifer (58:31) Have a good one. Thanks, Connor. Thank you.
Alicia Iannece (58:34) Thanks, guys. Bye.