Transcript
James Donachie (00:00) hey, Jim. How are you?
Dawn Urbani (00:18) Hello?
James Donachie (00:20) Hey, how is everyone?
Dawn Urbani (00:24) Good. How are you?
James Donachie (00:25) Good. Here comes Patty.
James Donachie (00:32) I see that… you guys also didn’t have good Friday off. Do you have Easter? Like do you have the Monday after Easter off? Nope? Neither do we?
Dawn Urbani (00:45) Nah, when you work in healthcare.
Patricia C McGonigle (00:48) You?
Dawn Urbani (00:48) Don’t get many holidays off some national holidays, but that’s about it. Yeah.
James Donachie (00:55) I.
Dawn Urbani (00:56) don’t know my video’s not loading. I don’t know why.
James Donachie (00:59) Okay. That’s alright. I.
Dawn Urbani (01:04) don’t know if anyone else will be joining today. Lee is off. I know that she sent the report over to you guys. Did you receive it?
James Donachie (01:11) Yep. Yeah, Jim.
Jim Espinoza (01:13) You.
James Donachie (01:13) got it. Right? A.
Jim Espinoza (01:14) Lot of call outs. Yes.
Dawn Urbani (01:16) Yeah. And then our other report, it was sent over to one of our it support guys to do the Frank inquiry so that’s being worked on.
Jim Espinoza (01:26) Okay. I have a couple questions about the data who might be best to answer those?
Dawn Urbani (01:32) I’m not sure if Patty could speak to those. Can you Patty?
Patricia C McGonigle (01:36) Yeah. Shoot. Then, let me know what they are, and I’ll see if I can help. Okay?
Jim Espinoza (01:43) I’m going to post the link to the working doc in the zoom chat. Hopefully, that doesn’t get blocked for you guys. I noticed that the links in the emails do, but I can also share my screen so we can take a look at it.
Dawn Urbani (01:57) Yeah, it doesn’t give us permission. It says access is blocked is.
Jim Espinoza (02:05) There a way you guys could get access. It would really make working through the data a lot easier.
Dawn Urbani (02:10) I can’t answer that. I have no idea. Yeah, I don’t know how we would get access if it’s a Google document. It’s probably blocked for security reasons. I don’t know if you guys who’ve been here at mainline health longer than me, know, like, are we, are, is Google not supported at?
Patricia C McGonigle (02:31) No, it’s not, we always have to send back to the providers. When we get anything from them that we can’t accept through Google?
James Donachie (02:37) Doc, okay?
Jim Espinoza (02:40) Jim, what?
James Donachie (02:41) If we, what if we send it to them in excel, do you guys have like a, what’s… it called? Sharepoint? I think, right? Is that what Microsoft calls, their, if we put it on there, would you be able to work on it, Jim?
Jim Espinoza (03:00) Maybe you guys would need to like create that document though. I don’t have a Microsoft account like that?
Patricia C McGonigle (03:06) Right. So, are the questions in the excel spreadsheet that we sent you? Is that where the questions lie? Okay? Can we look at that? Just look at the excel and you can just let me know what it is, what concerns are out there? I.
Jim Espinoza (03:19) Can, what I can do is I can email this version and then we’ll as an excel. We’ll start off of that one because I have like made changes and like I have notes and call outs in the data just so we’re not starting blank from what I’ve reviewed already.
Patricia C McGonigle (03:33) Okay.
Jim Espinoza (03:35) Okay. So like this first tab is the providers tab there’s an error column that I added like dictating what’s the issue with this line. A main one is SSNS across the board are missing. That is something that we need to be able to pull data in from caqh. I know previously, with the first set of providers, there was a second report that came in with like provider email and SSN that we had to then join into this sheet. Not sure if we need to do that again.
Patricia C McGonigle (04:06) Yeah. I wasn’t sure if we.
Dawn Urbani (04:08) I’m sorry. Do you know why we didn’t include social security numbers? Is it because we can’t email them through mainline health?
Patricia C McGonigle (04:15) Right. Normally, we don’t until we have approval until we’ve had sign offs by the providers to submit to certain payers, we have to have kind of approval before we can start working on their behalf with their socials. Now, we have that for us with the specific payers. So I’m not sure if we were just waiting on to make sure that was okayed to send those out because in caqh, you have access and it gives you the last four numbers, but I’m not sure if that was from a legal perspective, just to say, let’s make sure that we can send this at this point in time. Okay? I bet we can find out. Yeah. Well.
Rebecca Dawson (04:57) Did our first data dump have socials in it?
Patricia C McGonigle (05:00) Yes, we weren’t the,
Dawn Urbani (05:01) credentialing payer, yeah, it was, so.
Rebecca Dawson (05:04) Patty, go ahead and we didn’t so everybody who’s not on here, they already have their socials for.
Patricia C McGonigle (05:11) Correct. Right? But that didn’t come. Yeah, that’s not from our department. Normally, we don’t do that, but that’s.
Rebecca Dawson (05:17) why? But what I’m saying is it was given for the first dump?
Dawn Urbani (05:23) The first go around, go ahead and give it for this dump. Yeah. Why didn’t we do it for this dump?
Dawn Urbani (05:32) I’ll check with Leah and see, yeah.
Patricia C McGonigle (05:35) Leah and I both didn’t put them in there because normally, that’s not something that we ever sent out to other than the payers that they have approved and signed off on. We don’t provide full socials. And we weren’t part of the first dump, you know, the first dump that went out. So, if that’s something legal has approved, then we can do that. Then I guess I’ll talk to Leah when she comes back on.
Dawn Urbani (05:55) Monday, who sent the first dump?
Rebecca Dawson (05:59) I don’t know it was done through the franken table and all of that good stuff. So.
Dawn Urbani (06:05) It was probably Alex and yeah, was his name, Roger? It?
Rebecca Dawson (06:11) Was probably already approved. I mean, yeah.
Dawn Urbani (06:13) I mean, the fact of the.
Rebecca Dawson (06:14) matter is they have almost all of our people’s socials. So, yeah.
Patricia C McGonigle (06:18) Right. I mean,
Dawn Urbani (06:18) they’re going to be doing the credentialing for us. So they would need the socials. Let’s revisit that on Monday. And if we have to pull in the socials, can we just give you a list of their socials? Or as.
Jim Espinoza (06:31) long as it’s like a way to tie it back? So like email’s a good one. So like email social?
Dawn Urbani (06:37) What about mpi, right? Would it be easier with the mpi to pull it back in?
Jim Espinoza (06:42) It’s just as easy?
Patricia C McGonigle (06:43) Yeah. I mean, we have them so we can easily put them into the chart, but… let us know we’ll revisit it on Monday. So that might be a, what else is there that you had issues with? So.
Jim Espinoza (06:59) Email is a requirement? There’s a couple in here that show, na, that is a hard requirement to have an account in medallion.
Patricia C McGonigle (07:06) Right. With this query, the providers, we have providers that are on there who haven’t started yet. So some of them, we were waiting to have their mlhs, you know what I mean? That would be their personal email. We were waiting until their start date to put in their mainline healthcare email address. Okay? And that’s something?
Jim Espinoza (07:26) If we’re blocked with SSNS, we can wait on the emails. Do we anticipate those coming in sometime next week? Those emails?
Patricia C McGonigle (07:35) Well, they’re not active. So if they’re utilized for anything, they’re not activated until they start. So, for example, some of the people that are in this query are starting in may are starting in June. So they wouldn’t if you were to email anything, it’s not an active email yet. And I think that’s why we were waiting until there was an email that could be communicated once they start. So, I don’t know if you want to pull out. I.
Rebecca Dawson (08:06) Think they’re just going to have to put their personal email in until they start that’s what we have to do in credstream right now.
Patricia C McGonigle (08:11) Right.
Rebecca Dawson (08:13) Once they get on, once they’re approved by board, Monica goes in and puts their mainline emails in.
Dawn Urbani (08:20) So that’s the way it’s going to work, Jim, is that, you know, we would have to, in the beginning phases of credentialing, you would have their personal email. And then once they switch and become active with mainline health, their email address will change to a mainline health email address, and we would have to give you that.
Jim Espinoza (08:38) Yeah. So the difference between right now and like once like you guys are fully ramped and working through the platform, you will have the ability to invite within platform whenever you’re ready. Right now. We’re trying to do like a bulk insert of providers. So what we could do is a leave these providers out. And then the mainline team adds them as they come in and are ready.
Dawn Urbani (09:03) Leave what I’m sorry, leave what providers out? The?
Jim Espinoza (09:07) Providers that do not have emails because they have not started, no.
Dawn Urbani (09:11) Well, none of them will have emails. I mean, any new provider going forward will not have any, a mainline health email until.
Patricia C McGonigle (09:18) They start until.
Dawn Urbani (09:20) They start like.
Patricia C McGonigle (09:20) Activated, right, right.
Jim Espinoza (09:22) So, moving forward, you could wait until they have one to invite them into the medallion platform or use a temporary email. And then.
Dawn Urbani (09:32) Update that?
Jim Espinoza (09:33) Email in platform? Sorry?
Dawn Urbani (09:35) I’m not following you. So say that again… to.
Jim Espinoza (09:40) Have a provider profile in medallion, an email is required?
Dawn Urbani (09:44) Yes, I get that. Yeah, I get that.
Jim Espinoza (09:46) Wait until they have an email to create that profile or use a dummy email like a personal email that then gets updated… right?
Patricia C McGonigle (09:58) And I think for this point here, what we were trying to do is we have ad providers right now who are in the queue, meaning they’re we’re working on them. They haven’t started yet. So that would be in a substantial amount of providers that we were hoping to do this in a bulk upload. So, I guess you tell us whether we give their personal email and then that can be converted once they start to the mlhs email, which is fine. But I think we were trying to avoid putting each one of those and building each one of those individually until we, you know, until we go live. And then we’re going to be doing one at a time obviously as a provider comes in, but we have ad right now that we could take advantage of the bulk import.
Dawn Urbani (10:42) Yeah, I think it would be important to give their personal email now so they could be in the bulk import.
Patricia C McGonigle (10:48) Yeah. If that’s required then, yes, we can do that.
Jim Espinoza (10:52) Yes, it is.
James Donachie (10:53) When do you guys generate the emails for like the work emails for these people? Because I know like may, it’s like a month out when I joined medallion, I got it like a week or two. Like I got it like a week before, when I got my laptop, my work email. Are you guys going to be generating these soon or not for a while? Well?
Dawn Urbani (11:15) HR generates them, right? And they won’t be active until the first day they start?
James Donachie (11:21) But… I guess what I’m thinking and I could be totally wrong here if we could get those work ones generated… like generated even knowing they won’t be active then you.
Dawn Urbani (11:34) That’s not us that’s not us. HR does that, we don’t have any leeway in there, you know, that’s an HR function. Yeah.
James Donachie (11:43) Yeah, HR isn’t going to want to make ad emails for us huh?
Dawn Urbani (11:47) Not yet. No, no, that’s not their practice.
James Donachie (11:50) Now, okay. When HR creates it in.
Jim Espinoza (11:53) Peoplesoft then it kicks over to Microsoft and creates the email address.
Dawn Urbani (11:57) Got it. Yes, correct. Yeah… thank you for that clarification.
Jim Espinoza (12:06) Yeah, we can use the personal email addresses if they’re provided.
Dawn Urbani (12:10) Yeah. And then once we get the mainline health email, I guess we’ll just go in the system and update it, correct? Correct? Yeah. All right. So, let’s add that to our list socials and the email Patty.
Patricia C McGonigle (12:25) Sure. Yeah.
Jim Espinoza (12:27) Another call out I had were these professions… the professions we require are in our options library which was provided in the original template but not in the one that came back. These are acceptable values. So the profession needs to be one of these to go into the medallion platform. There’s a couple here that do not fall into the acceptable values that we have. So we would need those to get mapped to something in the options library.
Patricia C McGonigle (12:58) So, for example, like where we have the crnp, you want them just to be NP, correct, it looks like.
Jim Espinoza (13:05) Okay. Yeah.
James Donachie (13:09) Jim, if you go back to the options library real quick, I just wanted to see what the, yeah… let me just.
Dawn Urbani (13:24) Since I’m you know, I’m newer to this, you know, I’m only here a couple months. Was this options library shared with us at the beginning stages of us? When was it shared?
Jim Espinoza (13:35) As recently as like two weeks ago, when I shared it.
Dawn Urbani (13:39) Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure.
James Donachie (13:42) it’s attached. It’s there are a lot of tabs. It’s usually the, it’s the last tab, right? Jim on each one of the imports.
Jim Espinoza (13:50) Yeah, correct. Okay.
Jim Espinoza (13:57) Another call out I had here, is there’s a couple of providers that don’t have npis that’s another field that we use too, or they also don’t have caqh numbers?
Patricia C McGonigle (14:06) Yes, they’re probably, I would think these are because again, I do the behavioral health, they’re probably the new providers that we don’t have. They didn’t come on board yet with an npi or a caqh, npi, usually that we get right away. So I can’t imagine, can you show me one or two of the ones that don’t have an npi, let’s see. But yes, caqh, we assign as we go through the process.
Jim Espinoza (14:34) Yeah. It looks like all of these are starting later. Okay? I guess. So those fields can also be updated within platform later. And then the caqh import could also be triggered later. It’s just, these would be very bare bone profiles, right? Which looks like it would be fine because of their start dates. I just wanted to call that.
Patricia C McGonigle (14:58) Out. Yeah, because you probably have there’s start dates in there that are August that are September.
Jim Espinoza (15:02) Yeah, you know?
Patricia C McGonigle (15:03) They’re way out there. So if there’s ones that are mandatory, like you said, for example, socials, I’m indicating that’s mandatory email mandatory. Some of the other pieces like this one and we can add in as we get them. But at least if they’re built on there as part of the initial bulk upload, like I said, since there’s a start date, it would make it a little bit easier. I think on both ends that it’s not a manual process but that, you know, that obviously these pieces will have to be added in as they get closer to the start date and we accumulate the information from their applications. Okay?
Jim Espinoza (15:45) Next, I wanted confirmation on the practice cleanup and just to confirm, you guys can see my screen, correct?
Dawn Urbani (15:53) Yes. Yep. Okay.
Jim Espinoza (15:57) I’ve gone ahead and tried to sort… these to show the duplicates. So it’d be the one we’re keeping and the one that’s being removed as a duplicate. It looks like it’s sets of two. And I just wanted confirmation that this is the one we want to remove because of the green one being the one we’re keeping.
Patricia C McGonigle (16:18) Okay. Yeah. We would have to have this list to see it because I’m not sure… these are ones that Leo would probably know better. They’re not behavioral health.
Jim Espinoza (16:28) Yeah. These were all in the sheet that you guys provided. All I did was sort them to what I believe is the order.
Patricia C McGonigle (16:36) Right. So you want us to confirm, yes, confirm that green is… the one. Yeah.
James Donachie (16:44) Green is good and white just needs to white. Yeah, delete or, oh, yeah, hopefully delete? Delete?
Patricia C McGonigle (16:53) Or even archive in case there’s a reason to come back. Now. Is this just because of the name? Because we have multiple locations that do have multiple names, and that would be.
Jim Espinoza (17:03) Unsure, Lee was the one that labeled these as duplicates?
Patricia C McGonigle (17:08) Duplicates, because of the location. Yeah, it.
James Donachie (17:12) Looked, I’m just looking at like a couple of them and I’m looking at the address lines and the lines seem to be the same like where… like the first one, even the suite is the same suite.
Patricia C McGonigle (17:25) Right. And.
James Donachie (17:27) then, yeah, yeah, it looks like it calls out the suite down below too. Yeah.
Dawn Urbani (17:35) It looks like the first one, it just has, the first one has the acronym for mainline health where the second one has the mainline health spelled out.
James Donachie (17:43) Yep. Right. Yeah.
Patricia C McGonigle (17:47) So, then scroll down. Let me see the remaining ones.
Jim Espinoza (17:52) Yeah, there’s 27 20.
James Donachie (17:54) Seven that’s pretty good 27 is I know it’s a lot but Jim and I have dealt with. They have multiple versions where we’re going. We’re working with the client right now.
Jim Espinoza (18:06) The.
James Donachie (18:07) duplicates. Are there’s all sorts of variations that came through somehow?
Patricia C McGonigle (18:13) Right. Yeah, I’m just wondering where because we normally use the abbreviations, the mlhc, I’m just wondering where the full name, where that came from?
Jim Espinoza (18:23) But yeah, looking at the,
James Donachie (18:25) I’ll talk to, yeah.
Patricia C McGonigle (18:26) Look at the enc to make sure the data it.
Jim Espinoza (18:29) Came over from Healthstream. And I was looking at our platform for the example of jefferson. For example, it looks like one provider had mainline health spelled out as a practice in the Healthstream data. So like I was confirming the data in medallion because it would need to be updated since we’re removing a duplicate to like change all those associations. It’s kind of an effort on our end to make these changes. And yeah, it looks like it was one provider. I think her name was like Alexandria every enrollment she had with jefferson neurosurgery as a practice was the full one instead of mlh. So it could have been something in the credstream data.
Patricia C McGonigle (19:09) Right. Well, I know with credstream and yeah, it’s a little different because I know from the medstaff side, they spell it out mainline healthcare where we, it’s mlhc to differentiate. So, I’m just hoping that when that might be the issue of when it was pulled over, I just want to make sure that we don’t lose any additional data because by deleting that name, you know, by deleting the white ones that we’re not losing anything critical that we need that just so happily, you know, that isn’t in the mlhc, but again, I’ll talk to Leah to make sure because these are, you know, non behavioral health. So I don’t want to speak to them and, you know, tell you to do anything we’ll meet on Monday, her and I, or Tuesday. Okay? But let me scroll down. Are there any, I want to make sure the behavioral health because they’re the ones I would know inside and out that they’re not on there.
Jim Espinoza (19:56) So, these were based on data already in platform. So we imported this in the first go around?
Patricia C McGonigle (20:02) Oh, this is the first go around, okay?
Jim Espinoza (20:05) Yeah. I moved the new ones out into their own sheet because these are net new imports, correct part of a cleanup… and these all look good. So far. There’s no call outs here. Okay? Actually, I did have a call out here but this is for one of not the behavioral health, but it looks like age range is three plus just wanted to confirm that that’s correct? Oh.
Patricia C McGonigle (20:31) I’m sure that’s a typo. Yeah, I’m sure it’s 13. Oh, if it’s what’s the location, can you slide over somewhere in Devon? Yeah.
Jim Espinoza (20:41) This is primary care Devon?
Patricia C McGonigle (20:45) Yeah. Let me confirm because primary care could be a 13 and older versus the 18. Okay. Just we’ll leave that on primary care. Devon. I’m writing these down to talk to her Jim.
Jim Espinoza (20:56) Do you want to, you want to maybe put that? Can we put that one in like an orange or something? Yeah?
Patricia C McGonigle (21:02) A different color, pick another from the rainbow… and I’ll email.
Jim Espinoza (21:10) Over this sheet and then like a breakdown of all the call outs and questions also.
Patricia C McGonigle (21:16) Got it. Okay. After.
Jim Espinoza (21:17) the meeting… for the provider practice associations, this PPG tab, I wanted to confirm that all this practice data is up to date with the practice data that was provided. So like how this one says primary care, Devon, there isn’t one here saying like change the name and this Devon is the wrong name.
Patricia C McGonigle (21:41) Right. No, I think that was the whole point is trying to, when adding it all in there, it’s a cleanup of both tabs. So they should be consistent. Yeah.
Jim Espinoza (21:52) The name here would be the, okay, that’s good. I’ll.
Patricia C McGonigle (21:55) confirm with Lee again, but I’m almost, I would say I’m 96 percent positive because that was the whole thing trying to make sure everything stayed consistent.
Jim Espinoza (22:05) Okay. I noticed that these, this one, it looks like one practice didn’t have a name, and I guess I can check really quick just to confirm that it doesn’t have to multiple names.
Patricia C McGonigle (22:17) Yeah, because that’s pay only. Oh,
Jim Espinoza (22:19) did you, do you know it like off, the top of your head? Like that? I was going to go look for that address.
Patricia C McGonigle (22:31) Yeah, that’s one of our hospitals, but, you know, there’s a lot of practices within those hospitals. 255. It’s paoli hospital. What was the?
Jim Espinoza (22:45) Office building three these?
Patricia C McGonigle (22:48) Are these mpis are provider specific, right? Yes.
Jim Espinoza (22:56) There is no two 37 three. Okay. So it’s this one based… only on?
Jim Espinoza (23:15) Okay. Thank you… that.
Patricia C McGonigle (23:20) Worked.
Jim Espinoza (23:27) Is this PPG’s tab a?
Jim Espinoza (23:37) Like a full list of all practices or just the new ones? This?
Patricia C McGonigle (23:43) Should be, the new ones are in their own specific tab. This is every group.
Jim Espinoza (23:49) The PPG. So like this provider, let’s say it looks like they might be here once, but this provider participates.
Patricia C McGonigle (23:57) At these four locations, right?
Jim Espinoza (24:00) And these four are across all practices, both the ones that were included originally and the new ones.
Patricia C McGonigle (24:07) I believe so. Yes. Okay.
Jim Espinoza (24:17) So, lastly, I was going to ask about the provider enrollments, but you guys mentioned that that’s coming with the new frankenquery for any that we already imported. If there’s a provider already in platform that’s now in this list, let’s say this provider and these are all net new practices. Should… we expect that provider in the new frankenquery provider enrollments? Or do we need to update the one that’s currently in the medallion platform to show these new practices?
Patricia C McGonigle (24:51) I believe the new frankenquery that’s going to come over is going to bring in any new provider that started as of whatever that date might be August, or September, right? So, every net new and every change that was made to their, because it’s going to have all their payer enrollment, the submissions, right? So anything that comes over it’s going to be pulled into that as well. I don’t think it’s going to be like a blanket like you can get rid of the old. And now here’s the new, I think it’s going to need to be merged in to the existing frankenquery. Like to override, you know what I mean? To update the changes, but I can talk to Roger and see if that’s how he’s doing it. Okay? Does that make it better or worse? Worse? Okay?
Jim Espinoza (25:39) I don’t think it’s too bad paths to try to merge data, right? Right? I don’t think there’s something we can do to make it better, but it is going to be an effort.
Patricia C McGonigle (25:49) Yeah. Well, the net new providers are going to be easy because they’re just going to be brand new to the whole thing. It’s really the providers that were existing and are already on there and still continue to have approvals come in effective dates and such from payers. You know, let’s say they started in July and half of their payers approved them by the time the Frank inquiry was built, but the remaining half have come in over the past couple of months.
Patricia C McGonigle (26:13) So that needs to be captured somewhere. So it’s just a matter of how that’s going to be. He’s probably going to provide. I would think the data full like that provider with all of their information. Are you saying you would prefer it if he could just to have just the net new data… like effective dates for let’s say, you know, a specific payer?
Jim Espinoza (26:36) No, I think all is probably best because we could have data that we might need and then not be provided if you guys give us only net new, having everything like we can always remove like take away versus can’t always add.
Patricia C McGonigle (26:54) Do you, have, I think it might be best to also maybe Roger, maybe you guys talk and make sure what you’re expecting and what he’s doing is, you know, because I’m not that technical. You know, I can talk some level of this stuff, but really I think it might be better to get it from the person who’s actually doing it. So you guys can kind of make sure exactly what’s coming through and what is able to happen. You know what I mean? He’s been on these meetings before I can provide you his email or Don can. And yeah. So there’s a discussion between two. I’m going to say two like minds, but two people who are doing more of that piece because I don’t want to say.
Dawn Urbani (27:37) No, I agree. Patty maybe we can have, yeah, I.
Patricia C McGonigle (27:39) don’t want to. Yeah, I don’t want to speak out of turn because, you know, like I said, I’m going to low level tech person. No, not really, but I mean, you know, I just, I don’t want, I don’t want it to all, you know, weeks of work be done and then you guys look at it and say we really can’t do much with this. It’s going to be like a, you know what I mean? So it would be better. I agree. He just started working on the frankenquery two or just received it a couple of days ago. So, I mean, chances are he probably is not going to touch that till next week at least and it’s going to take him a little bit of time. So it might be better before he really starts getting into it to be clear on what would be best with the non net new, with the existing providers that are going to have additional updates and changes to them.
Jim Espinoza (28:25) Yeah, I would say as long as it’s the same format as last time, we should be fine and like not do anything different. Just like pull everything. The only ask I have is to have a distinction between the net new and the updates. We can call them. So like any net new providers just like if we could have that separate because that will be handled differently than any providers that haven’t been or have already been provided to us from the first Frank inquiry.
Patricia C McGonigle (28:58) I’m going to send if you don’t mind, Jim and Dawn, if you don’t want an email to Roger or Dawn, you can send it and just, and Jim have you on there and just say, want to make sure we’re all on the same page and we can outline the specifics of what we think we were giving you.
Patricia C McGonigle (29:14) And you can say this is what I definitely, you know what I mean? Just so it’s all there and everybody’s on the same page before a lot of work gets done. Yeah, I think.
Dawn Urbani (29:23) That’s a good idea Patty. Thank you. Yeah… we’ll me and you can touch base after I haven’t, I actually have a hard stop right now. I have to jump on a committee meeting, but I’ll call you afterwards, Patty, and we’ll discuss.
Patricia C McGonigle (29:37) Okay. That sounds good. All right.
Dawn Urbani (29:42) Sorry, guys. I do have to jump for another call. No. Okay. We’ll be in touch with email.
James Donachie (29:49) Okay. Thank.
Patricia C McGonigle (29:50) you. Thank.
Dawn Urbani (29:51) you.
James Donachie (29:56) But Jim, you’re going to, we’ll put that in excel for Patty and send it over.
Patricia C McGonigle (30:04) Yes, that would be great. And then I’m going to, I’ll meet with Leah on Monday. Like I said, she can speak more to the non behavioral health. I mean, I’m familiar with all of it too, but I just want to be clear when she was looking at it. I didn’t double check, you know, her stuff and she didn’t double check mine. We just kind of gave a quick, you know, made sure our stuff was in order. Okay? Yeah.
James Donachie (30:25) That sounds great. And then if you want to just update us, I know we have the call set for Friday next week, but if there are updates before that, send over any of the edits, then Jim and I can start to process that information too as we.
Patricia C McGonigle (30:47) Get it. Okay. And Jim, I’ll put you on that email obviously to Roger because for you guys to touch base or, you know, clarify exactly what’s needed, okay?
Jim Espinoza (30:56) Yep.
Patricia C McGonigle (30:57) All right. Thank you. All right. Have a nice weekend, everybody. Yep.
James Donachie (31:02) Goodbye. Bye.
Patricia C McGonigle (31:03) Bye bye.