Transcript
Mwinship (00:02) how’s it going? Oh, I just,
Kunal Parwani (00:05) can’t wait for the day to be done? What about you?
Mwinship (00:09) Same… and my day’s not even bad today. I just, I don’t have it in me.
Kunal Parwani (00:16) Yeah, it’s just the culmination of the week. I’m over it now.
Mwinship (00:22) Yeah.
Kunal Parwani (00:23) Hey, Melissa. Hey, how are you?
Mwinship (00:27) Okay. So, I think I kind of figured out at least a couple different trends as to what was going on. So, in my original spreadsheet, and I think I must have closed out of it because now I can’t find, it had on there like the payr and then I had it broken out by the different plans… right? So.
Kunal Parwani (00:53) You mean the light of business, right?
Mwinship (00:56) Yes. Okay. So on… like Aetna’s when… I was looking at… I can’t think of how you pronounce his name, but Bhatia… yeah.
Kunal Parwani (01:14) Yeah, you got it. No.
Mwinship (01:15) When I was looking at that one, I noticed. Okay. So, it had the one 31 20 20 effective date, but then it had for the Aetna Trinity piece, a different date, which… Aetna Trinity is even though it’s and this is where it gets confusing even though it’s Aetna yep, is done, is completed through health partners. It’s part of health partners.
Kunal Parwani (01:45) Oh, okay. So.
Mwinship (01:48) That’s why there’s a different date. And then that date for Aetna Trinity should match the health partners date. Okay? So, I’m sorry?
Kunal Parwani (01:56) Yeah. So, yeah. Okay. Sorry, go ahead.
Mwinship (01:58) So then as I was looking at anthem, so, and this is what’s going to be. And I think we’re going to have two different workflows. Maybe potentially. Yep. So, like for, anthem medicaid did not become par in Ohio again until two 120 23. So, any provider that had been enrolled with anthem prior to that, may have, you know, a different date, right?
Kunal Parwani (02:29) Right. And.
Mwinship (02:29) the anthem medicaid became effective two 120 23.
Kunal Parwani (02:36) Yep. I see that too.
Mwinship (02:38) Our contract became effective… now, going forward, new providers will have all the same date, right? It’s just going to be, this is where it’s going to get a little complicated is, if it is a partners for kids because partners for kids, could potentially have a different effective date, for anthem medicaid than the anthem commercial, right?
Kunal Parwani (03:08) Okay, going.
Mwinship (03:09) Forward… the other one that I kind of noticed was humana and the humana medicaid was different than the traditional humana commercial. So in a commercial, that line of business went away and I think it kind of, I do believe last year was the finale of the humana commercial.
Kunal Parwani (03:45) Okay.
Mwinship (03:47) And so it’s gone, but humana, medicaid, our pediatric providers that are enrolled through partners for kids are the only providers that will have humana medicaid. And if it’s medicare or if it’s an adult provider, they’re not going to have, we don’t have a contract for our adult practice providers.
Kunal Parwani (04:18) Right. So.
Mwinship (04:20) They’re not going to have that. So the humana is going to be, so we have the commercial line of business and the medicare line of business. And the medicaid line of business, right line of business is only for our pfk providers, commercial line went away. The medicare line is the only one left for that piece. So our old providers will have, if they’re adult… practices will have no humana medicaid. And then the commercial line and the medicare line, pediatric practices will.
Kunal Parwani (04:58) Have the commercial medicare and medicaid. Yes. Okay. Oh, interesting. So, yeah. Okay.
Mwinship (05:07) It’s going to be complicated.
Kunal Parwani (05:10) Yeah. I definitely agree with that. The part that I’m glad about is that, you know, after your investigation, it sounds like technically these are not duplicates. They’re just different scenarios that are being accounted for.
Mwinship (05:26) Yes, but.
Kunal Parwani (05:28) Because of, you know, the, what you guys call those payers in your system. And then the mapping from ours is probably why we’re seeing them like this now, correct?
Mwinship (05:39) And I think that’s why when I originally did the spreadsheet, I did it by payor and then by plan because there were so many different scenarios.
Kunal Parwani (05:52) Yeah. And I mean, in thinking about it now, I mean, it does make sense to have these as separate lines because these are separate scenarios.
Mwinship (06:03) Ah… but is it, I… guess I don’t know. So I’m thinking we may have to have for the old going in importing versus the new… but then still, for the new, we’re still going to have like an like at or let’s go with anthem, an anthem, commercial medicare and then medicaid’s going to have to be its own because.
Kunal Parwani (06:33) Right. Well.
Mwinship (06:37) I guess I don’t really want to say anthem because anthem would be all the same. Nevermind. Let me use, humana, medicare versus humana, medicaid. Yep, because that’s done through pfk, but they still could have different effective dates.
Kunal Parwani (06:52) Yeah. Well, I mean, if the effective date is different.
Kunal Parwani (07:00) But you’re saying different effective dates for?
Mwinship (07:03) The lines of business?
Kunal Parwani (07:04) Yeah. So that can still be accommodated. So, for example, let me share my screen.
Mwinship (07:12) And I know we’re complicated so.
Kunal Parwani (07:14) Yeah. No, that’s perfectly fine. So, for example, this provider, right? Huh. And, if they have a different like effective date, it can, that can still be accounted for within the actual single enrollment. So to show you an example, do, yes, for example, for his Aetna enrollment, Aid six, zero, zero five four, you will notice that each line of business. Well, these two have the same date, but this one has a different date, but it’s still being accounted for in the same enrollment, right? But then he has these two other commercial ones and.
Mwinship (08:01) I think one of, the one that had the different, the three 320 yep, is the Aetna Trinity, which is three health partners.
Kunal Parwani (08:10) Right. Yeah. So technically, these are not duplicates. It’s just correct scenarios. Oh, lordy lord. Okay.
Jason Zednick (08:21) So let me start with you’re.
Mwinship (08:24) very speechless today.
Jason Zednick (08:26) Well, we have got.
Mwinship (08:28) You speechless?
Jason Zednick (08:30) Wow. I am having a hard time following, so I don’t have much to say, but I will say one thing and I don’t know if this helps or complicates things, but we now have a partners for kids payr.
Mwinship (08:49) Correct that.
Jason Zednick (08:50) Is available. So the thinking there would be that you can record the partners for kids enrollment. And the assumption being that any of the mco plans downstream that they are enrolled inherited from that partners for kids enrollment. So that could be a way to consolidate some of that if that helps.
Kunal Parwani (09:20) So, yeah, I mean, okay, there’s two pieces. The first piece that we had that we were kind of trying to solve was the duplicate issue. I think now we’re identifying that. It’s not a duplicate enrollment issue. It’s just different plans and scenarios specifically for partners for kids. As you said, what we can do is let’s say… I mean, it might not apply to exactly this scenario, but let’s say this line or actually, you know, what let’s say, this is actually Aetna, the six zero, zero, five, four. And then the Aetna four, one, one, two, four is the Aetna Trinity that goes through partners for kids. We could, you know, identify those lines across all providers and switch this from Aetna to partners for kids instead of keeping it under Aetna since we now have a separate pair called partners for kids.
Mwinship (10:17) We could do that. But what we have to watch though is that for regular. So for Aetna, we, our adult providers are par with Aetna medicaid.
Kunal Parwani (10:28) Right. So.
Mwinship (10:29) It wouldn’t be, they would not be enrolled in the partners for kids because partners for kids is just for the pediatric providers.
Kunal Parwani (10:37) Right. So, essentially, what I’m saying is I would pretty much provide you an extract of, well… essentially all the enrollments if you to make it easier for kind of us to work through those lines. If you have a list of all your pediatric providers, I can filter that list for just the pediatric providers and provide you the list of their enrollments, and then we can decide which ones to switch to partners for kids.
Mwinship (11:10) Okay. We could do that. And the other thing is, and this is where things get screwy with enrollment. Is that not all providers that are pediatric providers are enrolled in pfk?
Kunal Parwani (11:29) Right. So I’m assuming for those they’re so.
Mwinship (11:35) They would just have the medicaid through copc and not through partners for kids.
Kunal Parwani (11:41) Right through Aetna, not through like Aetna Trinity, pfk, correct? So in those scenarios, my understanding… is that then they wouldn’t even have this like third line for Aetna. Do you have an example for a non pediatric provider that’s enrolled with Aetna? A?
Mwinship (12:01) Non pediatric provider? Yeah.
Kunal Parwani (12:03) Because because those are the ones that are not going to, we’re not going to be switching, right? So I just want to see their enrollments are as it stands right now, look.
Mwinship (12:12) At doctor, let’s see here. Let me just think dr Debor is.
Kunal Parwani (12:16) That DEVERD?
Mwinship (12:18) EV o RV.
Kunal Parwani (12:20) OR.
Kunal Parwani (12:29) OK. So if we take a look at their enrollments, I still, I do see still there… like managed… medicaid… and then commercial and government separate. Well… there’s commercial government in this line too. But then also in these lines, and this is the six zero, zero five, four, this is the four, one four.
Mwinship (12:56) And the four one, one, two, four is the… Trinity Aetna Trinity, which is part of health partners. So could we collapse? Okay? Here’s, another thought… because we’re not really going to drive and hone in on payer ids within medallion, but like health partners includes your medben, your Trinity, Oscar… right? And so they would all have, so could we have under the health partners, that would be those all would be included under that health partners… like we did with the pfk?
Kunal Parwani (13:44) Do we already have a pair? I?
Mwinship (13:49) Thought we did have one for health partners? Let’s.
Kunal Parwani (13:52) Take a look. I.
Mwinship (13:54) Could be wrong.
Kunal Parwani (13:57) Actually… let me just take a look at the mapping. I think we might have mapped it, right? Because.
Mwinship (14:04) I know there were questions about it in the beginning because, yes.
Kunal Parwani (14:08) So let’s see, yeah. So that’s the mount Carmel health plan, which does exist. Yes. Yep. So… I mean in, yeah. So, in that… scenario, I feel like we might not need to, I mean, potentially we might need to delete later on, but I think we table that conversation for a little bit. I think what we start off with is switching some of these payer names on these enrollments, for example, from Aetna to pfk or to mount Carmel health plan, and then kind of evaluate what the situation looks like as it stands in medallion, and then decide what other further cleanup if any, we need. Okay? So to… kind of start that piece for the pfk, that makes sense as to what you need. If you provide me a list of all the pediatric providers, I can provide you a list of enrollments. Okay?
Mwinship (15:21) I can get that and.
Kunal Parwani (15:23) Then we decide which enrollment to switch, to partners for kids, for the, for this scenario where we’re switching to mount Carmel health plan? What do you need from me in? Like is there a subset of providers you think? Is it going to be no?
Mwinship (15:44) It’s not a subset of providers. It is, it’s just like and we’re enrolled. We enroll with all of them like the Oscar the, and that is not based on any type of provider specialty. It’s all of our providers. So that’s your med bin. You’re at the Trinity Oscar. There’s one more. And for some reason, I can’t think of what it, it’s off the top of my head, but I can get you that list for what is all included in the mount Carmel. So.
Kunal Parwani (16:19) I guess that’s my… it’s a little complicated, but that’s another question. For example, for this provider, we won’t be switching the Oscar enrollment, right? Or is that what we’re saying that we’re going to switch this to mount Carmel?
Mwinship (16:41) Yes, because it’s not, it’s part of the mount Carmel, it’s part of health partners. And I’m pretty sure when, and I can double check with.
Mwinship (16:55) Alyssa, but I’m pretty sure that when she does before, when she did enrollment for health partners, that included, she didn’t have to do anything separate for Oscar, right? I’m, I can double check that though. Let me get my, okay.
Jason Zednick (17:14) Yeah. It sounds like we would just need to know… what payers are under that sort of parent payer, right?
Mwinship (17:25) Right. Yeah.
Kunal Parwani (17:27) I guess. Sorry, just to bring something up. I guess my… not question but more so hesitation is since this doesn’t have multi, sorry, since like that says this Oscar, one doesn’t have multiple rows. Do we even need to switch it to the parent to parent? Is my.
Jason Zednick (17:49) Question?
Kunal Parwani (17:50) The.
Mwinship (17:51) only thing I could think of is that is if, at the time when we’re doing enrollment, if Oscar is separate, then someone might click on Oscar. And then that would send a dual application… to health partners one for Oscar and one for just regular health partners and cause a conflict?
Jason Zednick (18:12) Yeah. I think… to my brain and I understand that like doing it like, I understand where you’re coming from KP, like if there’s not a duplicate there, then that’s okay. Like theoretically, you could have the health partners enrollment and that Oscar one could live there on the side and it doesn’t hurt anything but like, and this is just me speaking from like my brain. I see it as like an opportunity to be like what’s the cleanest way to leave the data when we’re done? And if we know, okay, all of the health partner payers are under the health partner line, then that’s just streamlined. But I do understand how that creates, you know, that’s like a whole extra step. It’s a whole extra thing. I get that.
Kunal Parwani (19:04) Okay. So, yeah, that makes sense. Because for example, for this provider, we have an Oscar enrollment, right? For exchange and marketplace line of business. Yes. And then we also have three mount Carmel health lines already one for medicare advantage and two for commercial and government.
Kunal Parwani (19:33) So, I’m thinking like that in this scenario, when we switch the Oscar one, we’ll have a potentially we’ll have a fourth line for mount Carmel health plan. But this time it would have the payor id as Oscar. If we want to keep the payor id with the exchange plan.
Mwinship (19:49) Okay. So let me ask you this since this is a delegated payor… which was with medigold. That was the other payor. Oh my goodness.
Kunal Parwani (20:01) Yeah, it is definitely complicated.
Mwinship (20:06) It’s delegated. We wouldn’t need, we would just need the health partners. And then as a subset list the payors that are under that because… it’s delegated. So we’re not going to do a one off application to health partners, right?
Kunal Parwani (20:27) I mean, if it’s delegated, then the enrollments would live on you.
Jason Zednick (20:30) Know the rosters?
Kunal Parwani (20:31) The rosters exactly like we won’t, even have them in the existing enrollments here at all… are we?
Jason Zednick (20:39) Saying, sorry, just, are we saying mount Carmel is delegated under the medigold? Is that?
Mwinship (20:45) I’m pretty sure that they are part of that health partners?
Jason Zednick (20:48) Does that mean? And sorry, I’m just trying to like wrap my head around the relationships that like if that’s true. So, you have the medigold, I’m.
Jason Zednick (21:03) sorry, it’s just like there are payers inherited from.
Jason Zednick (21:11) Sorry, I’m trying to think of what I say, it’s like.
Mwinship (21:12) Delegated it’s like three steps. It’s the big umbrella. And then once they get the delegated roster, then they’re sending it to these additional payers to say we’re par with this state because it has to go through all of their committees as well, the providers do.
Jason Zednick (21:31) Yeah. So it sounds like the one delegation gives you access to like.
Mwinship (21:36) Correct. So.
Jason Zednick (21:37) Like I’m just going to say 10 different payers, I know that’s not the real number, but.
Mwinship (21:41) Well, it could be because I know I just got notification that they want to include anthem and Martin’s point, and we’re like, no, we have separate contracts. We’re not going to do that. Yeah, but they have done something and they are trying to wrap anthem and Martin’s point into that delegated umbrella… but we’re not doing that. So.
Kunal Parwani (22:13) Yeah, there’s going to be a tricky one to figure out, I think.
Mwinship (22:20) So, yeah, if we had health partners… we know that goes on the roster, boom. We don’t need to do any for new providers. I guess for the existing providers that’s where it’s going to look funky.
Jason Zednick (22:38) Well, the existing providers, they’re still, they’re… included in that delegation, right?
Mwinship (22:45) Right. Yes. But what I’m saying is it’s just their lines of business. When you come out to their individual payer, it’s going to look funny.
Jason Zednick (22:55) Do they have, are there lines of business that are not included in the delegation that are a separate?
Mwinship (23:03) I don’t not for health partners. I do not believe for health partners, no, but I will double check, okay?
Jason Zednick (23:10) So, my instinct there, if I’m understanding correctly, is that… what I would do for me is, if they’re delegated, I would eliminate all enrollment records from the enrollments.
Mwinship (23:32) Okay. I see where you’re headed with that, right?
Jason Zednick (23:35) Because they live under the delegation. So the roster is the source of truth, and there’s no mechanism to keep the enrollment record updated. So it has to be on the rosters. So.
Mwinship (23:47) Let me, is there a way then as a provider, if I come out here to look, am I on medigold or am I on… medben? At natrinity? Will there be something listed under payers that I can come out here and say, yes, I am par, yeah.
Jason Zednick (24:08) That’s the exact right question to ask. And unfortunate answer is no, medallion does not have a good way to indicate which payers… you’re delegated with through the UI. It’s sort of a.
Mwinship (24:29) I say that’s an enhancement? Yeah.
Jason Zednick (24:32) No, it’s to my mind, it’s a pretty, big gap unless KP, you know, something that I don’t I.
Kunal Parwani (24:38) mean, okay, I mean, I do know something.
Jason Zednick (24:43) I’m sure you know, a lot of things that I don’t.
Kunal Parwani (24:45) but I… don’t even want to talk about it because it’s not really in a good spot. So, okay, for example, if I pick up this enrollment, right? You’ll see here that this says what’s the enrollment method? Either it’s direct or it’s no credentialing required. There is… a way that we can import delegated enrollments. So it’ll say it’ll have a tag over here that says delegated so you’ll see them but the pro and you’ll be able to tell that it’s delegated. But the problem is you can’t mark an enrollment from the UI as a delegated enrollment. Does that make sense that I can import it via our tool? But, and you’ll be able to see those, but moving forward after that, you can’t come in and be like, yeah, this one’s actually delegated, let me mark it. So.
Jason Zednick (25:44) Yeah, that’s because like if you think about like… it’s cool. If we could do that like in one bulk. But but then going forward, like each one has to be exactly, yeah. So.
Kunal Parwani (26:00) That’s what I’m saying. So that’s why I kind of didn’t want to talk about it is because like retroactively, like not retroactively, but like historical enrollments, I could theoretically re import as delegated, but moving forward, you won’t be able to track all the new ones as delegated. So what’s the point of having a half measure in there?
Mwinship (26:18) Right, right.
Jason Zednick (26:19) I agree.
Kunal Parwani (26:20) That’s just going to lead to more confusion. I feel.
Mwinship (26:23) And I would too because I could see a provider going in here and looking and they’re like, well, this says, I’m not, you know.
Jason Zednick (26:31) Right. We.
Mwinship (26:32) are a big medicare, our adult, especially our adult practices, they are big in their medicare yep.
Jason Zednick (26:40) Melissa, how conceivable… is it for y’all to host your rosters somewhere public to your providers probably outside of medallion, which you know, I hate to have to make a suggestion but it’s just so that they can reference that as well. I’m going to be honest, I.
Mwinship (27:03) Can take that back, but I honestly don’t think that… they want that easy. They want that quick. Really, there’s not a place that I can think of that we could post them.
Kunal Parwani (27:27) Might I make a suggestion? So… we like, I already generate the rosters every month including the full roster for every delegated pair. If the tab exists obviously in the template. I mean, it is possible for your it team to take that and, you know, create something that the providers could just use to look it up since the data is already there in those excel files.
Mwinship (28:04) So, right. It.
Kunal Parwani (28:05) Is possible. I just don’t know if you’re going to get enough buy in to be.
Mwinship (28:12) Able to, and that’s yeah. And that’s what, I don’t think that, I mean, and I will take that definitely take that back… but I don’t know how… it will be received. Yeah, because then they’re going.
Jason Zednick (28:28) To be and believe me, if I had my way, Melissa, we would have like, you know, a functionality that was basically like, hey, put in your list of delegated payers and medallion. And then like there would be some UI element where when the roster runs, there would be a tab and they’d be like, hey, who am I delegated with? And if they were on the roster, their name would have like a little checkmark or whatever. Like I don’t know what it is. Yeah, it just doesn’t exist today.
Mwinship (28:56) Okay. So, all right. So right now, this is my homework is to get all the payers under healthpartners get a roster of all the current providers under the pfk. And… then, yeah… see if there’s potential to post a roster somewhere outside of medallion for the providers to review. Again. I don’t know how well that’ll be received, but I will definitely bring that up.
Kunal Parwani (29:26) Yeah, I think that’s a good start. What I’ll do is for my piece, once you get me some of that information, I think we start off with the pfk piece since I think that’s going to be a much easier and quicker cleanup. Okay?
Mwinship (29:45) So,
Kunal Parwani (29:46) once you give me the list of providers who are pediatric providers, what I can do is I can pull all their enrollments. Do you want me to pull specific payers and their enrollment? Or do you just want me to pull all of their enrollments? And we can kind of take it from there?
Mwinship (30:00) No, it would just be the specific plans. So, like, I know anthem medicaid, ameritas, uhc… medicaid, and humana, medicaid. And then I’m missing one buckeye, I think it is… okay. Those are the payers that pfk?
Kunal Parwani (30:21) Enrolls. Okay. So if you could have that list in the email, just so I have something to refer to, okay? And then we can, and I’m assuming you mean buckeye health plan and not the better, right? Okay. Correct?
Mwinship (30:39) Yeah, buckeye health plan?
Kunal Parwani (30:40) Okay. Yeah. So if you could just have that list along with those providers, what I’ll do is I’ll pull all enrollments that we have in medallion for those providers, for those payers. And then how do you usually determine? Oh, I see you said you determine based on the line of business. So, what I can do is I can have the line of business along with the payer id on each line of the enrollment. So you can differentiate those lines since they have.
Mwinship (31:10) This now, the payer id is going to be different.
Kunal Parwani (31:12) Right, right. So, what I’ll do is like I’ll for example, for.
Mwinship (31:17) Each of the payers. So, if you just had one that said partners for kids, right? Because they should all have the same effective date across the board for all the medicaid plans, that are those medicare, not medicare, the medicaid advantage plans?
Kunal Parwani (31:32) Yeah.
Mwinship (31:33) The effective date should be across the board for all of them.
Kunal Parwani (31:37) Okay. So, so if.
Mwinship (31:39) we had one entry that said partners for kids, then we’re going to know or it should come back that, you know, the anthem, the meritas, the buckeye, the uhc and the humana are all effective dates at this on this date, so.
Kunal Parwani (31:54) In that scenario, just to get an idea, the end result is going to be, we will no longer have buckeye health plan. This will be switched to like partners for kids, but that’s well.
Mwinship (32:06) No, we’re still going to have buckeye because of our adult practices or providers that are not part of pfk?
Kunal Parwani (32:12) Right, right.
Mwinship (32:13) It’s not every book, right?
Kunal Parwani (32:14) I meant for only pediatric providers that are under pfk?
Mwinship (32:19) Yes, that would be correct.
Kunal Parwani (32:20) Like we would replace buckeye with pfk. Okay. That’s yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Yeah, that’s definitely doable. Okay. The only health problem. Yeah. Sorry, go on. We.
Mwinship (32:33) Are so complicated.
Kunal Parwani (32:35) No, it’s just, I feel like it’s I feel just the healthcare payer world is pretty complicated.
Mwinship (32:43) Well, and just like with buckeye, not buckeye, but ambetter. We just found out that we are now part of another plan that they have that they started releasing in late 20 25, it’s called sunflower health.
Kunal Parwani (33:02) Interesting. Okay. I.
Mwinship (33:04) thought it was a hoax when I got the document.
Jason Zednick (33:09) Like,
Mwinship (33:10) I have never heard of sunflower health, but it is truly part of ambetter.
Jason Zednick (33:17) Okay. Yeah. We have ambetter from sunflower health. Yep.
Kunal Parwani (33:21) As a pair, we.
Jason Zednick (33:23) only have it in chansley’s yeah.
Mwinship (33:25) It was released in, I think late 20 25 according to my liaison to Ohio.
Jason Zednick (33:32) Oh, okay. Cool.
Mwinship (33:34) So they’re spreading their wings, okay?
Jason Zednick (33:39) Or they’re petals, so.
Mwinship (33:41) To speak, yes, petal,
Kunal Parwani (33:44) so, essentially, what I’m going to need your help with Melissa is, once I send you the list of those enrollments of the pediatric providers under those specific pairs, I’m going to need help in identifying which enrollments to switch to partners for kids unless it’s all, then that’s easier on you that you don’t have to identify those separately. Okay? But just in case we don’t you know, you and I don’t miss anything. We’ll still kind of do that exercise to make sure that we’re switching the correct ones… and not anyone that we don’t need to.
Mwinship (34:22) Okay. So, I will get the, yeah, I’ll get that current roster of providers from pfk. I’ll send you once I get that, I’ll also include all of the payers that are included in that pfk enrollment. Yep, double checking with health partners is what is all included under health partners? Okay? And then the question of posting potential rosters for providers to look at outside of medallion.
Kunal Parwani (34:51) Yep. That sounds good. Okay?
Mwinship (34:53) So that’s my homework. So I will work on doing that on Monday. Perfect. Because after this meeting, my brain is fried. It’s Friday. I’m going to come into the office today and I’m done.
Kunal Parwani (35:09) Yeah, I was going to say I’m pretty done for the day after this meeting too. Yeah.
Jason Zednick (35:13) Yeah. The only thing I would say in addition is just a reminder that, you know, as it takes us a little bit of time to clean this up. If we can help remind the team that like any kind of like demographic update or anything like that, we just need to be careful about which enrollments… we.
Kunal Parwani (35:42) include.
Jason Zednick (35:43) in that… we can’t do select all because of this problem, right?
Mwinship (35:50) Right. And I totally agree because I know I had received an email from mount Carmel and it looked like one of the providers. I don’t know if it was a demographic change. I don’t think it was a new provider. I can’t remember.
Kunal Parwani (36:07) But basically.
Mwinship (36:09) It got sent over individually versus on the roster. Yeah. And I’m like, no, no, just disregard that.
Kunal Parwani (36:18) Yeah. So I was going to say because of this complication because of all the complication, I think let’s keep the peer ids okay? We can do that populated for now. And maybe like your team can whenever they’re requesting an individual application or a demographic update, you know, they can maybe make a decision on which enrollment line to pick based on the line of business and.
Mwinship (36:46) their.
Kunal Parwani (36:46) id combination, yeah.
Mwinship (36:49) The credentialing team does not deal with payer ids, right? So I could rattle off a payer id and they’re not going to know what it is.
Kunal Parwani (36:58) Right, right. But, yeah, maybe if we could like eventually like a, you know, like an sop document for them to kind of follow to make it a little more streamlined at least until we figure out a better way.
Mwinship (37:10) Right.
Kunal Parwani (37:11) Hopefully.
Mwinship (37:14) Okay. So, we need a cheat sheet for our side.
Kunal Parwani (37:19) Yeah, just so you don’t you know, you’re not in the same situation you’re right now with individual updates going to delegated providers or, you know, lines of business that don’t need to be updated.
Mwinship (37:30) Right.
Kunal Parwani (37:31) Yeah… okay.
Mwinship (37:36) All right.
Kunal Parwani (37:39) But I think it’s a good start. Okay to at least, you know, getting to the final solution.
Mwinship (37:47) All right. Sounds good.
Kunal Parwani (37:50) Awesome. Thank you for the investigation as well, Melissa.
Mwinship (37:54) Not a problem. Thanks for jumping on because I don’t know if I could have explained it.
Jason Zednick (37:59) I don’t know why you couldn’t have put this in an email, Melissa. I don’t know why you couldn’t have.
Mwinship (38:03) I mean, I can do an email, but I’m not that good.
Jason Zednick (38:08) I.
Kunal Parwani (38:08) feel like I would have gotten more confused reading it.
Jason Zednick (38:10) No, there’s no way there’s no way whatsoever. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Beth.
Kunal Parwani (38:18) Have a good weekend. Everyone. All right?
Mwinship (38:19) Thanks, you guys too. Take care. Bye, bye, bye bye.