Transcript
Nick Scallion (00:00) yo, what’s up, buddy?
Joshua Levitan (00:02) How are we?
Nick Scallion (00:05) Tired… the old connection back home just always stinks. So, yeah, got home late last night, you know? Yeah.
Joshua Levitan (00:16) Was that a good trip?
Nick Scallion (00:18) Yeah, yeah, it was good. It was good. Yeah… good. Getting the gang together always. Yeah, but I’m sure you also got caught up on all your stuff and feel pretty good about staying home too. I am not complaining. All right. Let’s see what’s up with Kay. She accepted. I feel like we’ve had some issues with them getting into zoom the last couple times. So maybe that’s it.
Nick Scallion (00:56) When are you rolling out to fly?
Joshua Levitan (01:01) We leave on Saturday.
Nick Scallion (01:05) Nice, smart.
Joshua Levitan (01:06) Yep. We’re gone for a while.
Nick Scallion (01:10) I mean, you should, if you’re I mean, if you can get the old care from Brucie. I mean, you guys should extend. It takes so long to get there.
Joshua Levitan (01:18) Yeah, his care is not cheap though, but, yeah, yeah… you know, the stuff that they review like the negative impact, negative business impact, positive like that quadrant. Yeah. What’s the name of that methodology?
Nick Scallion (01:45) Well, you’re not like thinking command of the message. Are you, maybe I am… let me see if I can show you… oh, yeah, which is not the force management.
Joshua Levitan (01:59) Okay. That’s what it is that’s all the management stuff?
Nick Scallion (02:01) Current state, negative consequences. Did I say pbos client capabilities? Yeah. Let… me shoot her a message.
Nick Scallion (02:33) I went on a walk around the block before this. I got Franklin barbecue with Manson yesterday and it’s like the 90 degrees here. I just felt like I was the meat sweats boy. I mean, it was so good but just so thick like a pound of brisket… damn, it’s so good when we.
Joshua Levitan (02:52) were down there last time I didn’t have it. I’ve never had it.
Nick Scallion (02:56) So, I mean, I would recommend next time we go Terry blacks is the move because there’s just like no, like the line was like five minutes. Franklin’s normally has like a two hour wait, which is just ridiculous. I’m not opting into that, but since it was like a Wednesday and we also waited for like because people will start waiting in line an hour or two before it opens. So we went at like 1,145 kind of before the big lunch rush, but also when the initial line died down, so Manson and I probably waited 30 minutes, which is about as long as I would have considered waiting so.
Joshua Levitan (03:24) It.
Nick Scallion (03:24) wasn’t too bad. But like Terry blacks is equal quality, bigger, faster line. You see, I would just Terry blacks is the move we did go to.
Nick Scallion (03:40) Alright, Kay’s, trying to enter in here. I gotta tell you about this comedy show later. That was hilarious.
Nick Scallion (03:53) Hey, Kay.
Kaye Prieve (03:55) Sorry about that. I’m in a conference room because we have no power in our office. So I kind of lost track of time and.
Nick Scallion (04:04) Oh my gosh. Yeah. And didn’t you say because didn’t you say there was also some pretty bad weather on Tuesday as well. So, has that been the cause of it?
Kaye Prieve (04:15) I’m not sure if it is or not. Yeah, we’ve had a lot of bad weather this entire week so far, so about every day and it’s rained quite a bit. So, I’m not sure if it is or if it does have anything to do with that or not. But yeah, our whole office has no power, so.
Nick Scallion (04:36) We’re all hopefully not too warm in there. I’m in Virginia and it’s like 90 degrees and if there was no power in here, I would be doing quite a bit of complaining.
Kaye Prieve (04:44) Yeah, no, it’s not that warm.
Nick Scallion (04:47) Okay. Well, thank you for your flexibility and willingness to meet.
Nick Scallion (04:52) Kay. I know that it sounds like there’s a meeting or meetings next week and the team is looking to figure out whatever the best choice is to streamline payr enrollment and credentialing and so my goal here has not been to withhold pricing, right? That’s very important to get that.
Nick Scallion (05:06) I understand that. So, I think as we explained that the menu is kind of a la carte and so really just trying to figure out scoping because what we’ll try to do is estimate how many services would be used within medallion within an annual period of time, so that we can estimate how much credit you would need. And then also apply the best volume discounts just similar to any software or services company. Kind of the more you commit to the larger scope of work, the less it costs on a unit basis. So my goal here is to find something that makes economic sense for you and then also pair that, you know, not to belabor it as well. But we are unique in that we will have a service level agreement basically guaranteeing how long it takes to submit payer enrollment, applications, produce ncqa credentialing files or produce joint commission credentialing files on the mdstaff side. So what we’ll try to do is put together what we’ve called the business value assessment. So following this call, I think worst case by early tomorrow morning, I have this to you. So you’ve got some time to review before next week’s meeting. You’ll get both the proposal and then accompanying that with the performance improvements that medi would contractually commit to. So that was the purpose of this call. Okay? And so I’m happy to answer any other questions you have. But maybe we could just kind of work through that quickly and then get you on your way.
Kaye Prieve (06:20) Sure. That sounds good.
Nick Scallion (06:22) Okay. So I prepared just a couple gaps that we had and tell me if you can see my screen?
Kaye Prieve (06:30) I can’t.
Nick Scallion (06:31) okay. So the medallion core platform, so that’s what you’ve seen in the demonstration, the core platform is where you’re doing away with spreadsheets as a source of record and having our software tool as your provider data management source. That also includes things like caqh integration. So we can pull data from caqh, all the reporting analytics, et cetera. So, you had mentioned that there’s probably about 250 providers at a given time. Some of these folks are not billing with for like their, you folks aren’t actually building their insurance but, you know, they have privileges in the hospital and you would be tracking those folks and then give or take there’s going to be high years and low years. But you’re thinking you add maybe up to 75 per year, but of course, there’s some attrition. So what I’m trying to get to is how many kind of quote unquote seats would you expect to be filled at any given time throughout a year? So should we stick with 250 because that’s kind of those 75 additions are kind of backfilling attrition and folks that are leaving or are you actually kind of growing the network every year? What would you say? Your best estimate there would be? I?
Kaye Prieve (07:31) Would say 250 is my best estimate. Okay? You know, we are not a large organization. So, you know, we do have providers that come and go, but I feel like that’s adding… 75 is kind of a higher volume but… perfect.
Nick Scallion (07:52) So we’ll do 250 and that makes sense there. And so I would think that the number of providers. So assuming that you’re obviously you have some ncqa credentialing that’s being done. You’re sending out rosters. So I assume that rwhc is probably doing some of the ongoing monitoring. So one of the things, I asked back to you was we have four different ongoing verification monitoring. I’ll put this a little bit bigger. I suspect that we’re probably looking at ncqa monitoring. And, you know, here are some of the, and I’ll make this even a little bit bigger. You can kind of see what exactly we are monitoring Sam, oig, npdb, things like that. And then there is a tier higher with a couple additions like ofac and a couple others. And so just trying to get a sense, do you know, just to make sure we’re apples to apples? And you’re getting the same type of verification on an ongoing basis that you currently have that you folks would need?
Kaye Prieve (08:43) Yeah. So I’m going to our quite honestly, no matter which route we go, we’re looking that we’re probably going to be eliminating our contract with our whc.
Kaye Prieve (08:58) So we will have to do all of the monitoring and do everything on our end. Then going forward, anything that they do, we will need to take over.
Nick Scallion (09:08) Right. And so what we have, so, a lot of these verifications, some of these have monthly requirements, npdb for example, is kind of like a continuous query. So it’s kind of constant monitoring that has to go there. So, are you saying you’re thinking about having your staff manually going out to each of these primary source verification entities for all of your providers or are you looking to subscribe with a, you know, like medallion for example, who has built out integrations?
Kaye Prieve (09:31) With all of these sources, we would want to subscribe because we want to make everything as easy as possible. We are not adding staff to do this.
Nick Scallion (09:38) Of course. Yeah.
Kaye Prieve (09:39) So, and I mean, very, honestly, our CEO is all about and CFO is all about automation. So anything to make it easier?
Nick Scallion (09:52) Right. And so, do, you know, based on what verification monitoring you’re getting with rwhc? So, is mcqa probably most in line with what you folks would need?
Kaye Prieve (10:01) Yes, I believe so.
Nick Scallion (10:03) Okay. All right, perfect. Do.
Joshua Levitan (10:05) We, can you go back, Nick to?
Nick Scallion (10:07) That slide? Yes, just before I… let me zoom in, go ahead josh?
Joshua Levitan (10:15) Yeah, we just want to be really clear. So I assume mcqa is the minimum, but I would just ask you to double check on the pieces that we put in comprehensive. So specifically like deathmaster ofac.
Kaye Prieve (10:31) We, I will definitely, I mean, if you can like at least just give me these two in a screenshot or something so that we can have that discussion with the group. Perfect.
Joshua Levitan (10:45) And the other way is if we can make your life easy there. If you have like a monitoring report or even on the credentialing side before we even get into monitoring, like if you have an anonymized packet or like a checklist from the top of a packet that rwhc runs, and you just want to send that to us, then we can match it up with like our internal terms, right? Because these things are all just how we, what we call it. So if we can make your life easy and you send us stuff, and then we match it up like happy to take that route as well. Okay?
Kaye Prieve (11:16) Yeah, I can look to see what they have… and.
Nick Scallion (11:20) Do you think, and so are these again, I know that there’s a distinction between providers that have privileges and are conducting care and for it, but you’re not doing the actual pay or billing with, would you be, would you suspect that you’re going to do the verification monitoring for all 250 providers or just the subset that you’re billing for?
Kaye Prieve (11:37) Oh, it would be for all, any provider that we have. So, yeah, it would be any provider that we have. Okay, whether they are, we’re billing for them or we’re not. Okay. So.
Nick Scallion (11:53) Probably in cqa and all 250, but potentially upgrade to comprehensive based on the… primary source verifications that are in there. So I’ll include that and we can adjust that and it would be a pretty nominal difference between the packages. So I don’t think it would be a huge difference if you need to upgrade the next was payer enrollment. So you provided you said basically, you know, hey, this is also a moving target. Maybe we’ll hire 32 new providers that we’re billing for and need to get enrolled every year. And, you know, providers are enrolled with like roughly 25 payers. But I think you had mentioned that about 10 of your agreements are delegated. So the distinction I want to make there is that we don’t want to.
Kaye Prieve (12:33) I don’t think 10 of them are, and honestly, we’re trying to go away with delegated only… because of how difficult it is right now, but I believe you guys showed where through you, it might not be as difficult. I think 10 would be a lot that we currently are delegated with.
Nick Scallion (12:55) Okay. That’s because, and maybe I misread the inputs but I think this is what you sent over. And so there was.
Kaye Prieve (13:02) Oh, I guess she did say 10, never mind.
Nick Scallion (13:05) Where is the 10? Okay. Yeah. Do you have any, we have 10 delegated agreements. There have been a huge admin burden. So we don’t enter any new.
Kaye Prieve (13:11) Ones. Yeah, then, I guess. Okay, she’s yep, she’s the one that does it. So. Okay.
Nick Scallion (13:15) All right. So then I just wanted to, it made a pretty big, it made like 150 enrollment difference. And I would just say for the record that like enrollments are probably going to be the most expensive per unit service that we have. So I wouldn’t want to overestimate 160 enrollment applications. So doing that math, it was closer to 640. Does that make sense to you? Yep? Okay. And we can get to this like certainly at a later point, Kay, but yes, I think if we do, I think we can do like a like again if there’s alignment following next week’s, internal meeting with your team to continue on the path of investigating and potentially partnering with medine. I do think we should look into delegated credentialing with medine because perhaps it’s audits that are challenging to keep up with or generating the rosters. It could be a number of things. And so I.
Kaye Prieve (14:03) think by the sounds of it, it’s the rosters and each of them need it done differently. So it sounds like that’s kind of more where she’s having issues.
Nick Scallion (14:13) Yeah. And so the good news is medine does generate, so, like during implementation, you would let us know the 10 rosters that you send out. And of course, payers are going to change their roster templates from time to time, but in general, they should be somewhat static. And so we would just get the 10 rosters that you use and we would then generate those for you on the cadence that you need. Typically, it’s monthly. So ideally that burden goes away. But again, if there’s any questions or specific friction that you have with a payer, we can dive in deeper. But delegated credentialing should be very easy with medine… the other piece. So these are new enrollments and then revalidations. These are again, I think as you’re aware, so any of these plans depending on if they’re commercial or government, they might require a revalidation every like two to four years. And so, if you wanted medine to handle those revalidations, one of the benefits of working with medine is that we’ll understand like let’s just say dr K is in network with these 20 payers here’s, when she was enrolled here’s, when she’s up for revalidation, so we can automate all of this in the background. So as K’S up for a united revalidation on August thirtieth, would you like us to go ahead and make sure that we get that done ahead of, that period where it lapses? So not a huge, I don’t imagine these are huge volumes. But if you want to consider that, I don’t think we got an answer for volumes for pay or revalidations, if you had any guesstimate or any perspective there.
Kaye Prieve (15:30) I don’t and I mean, I’d have to kind of go back and look at her file. But for some reason, I’m not thinking when I think of revalidation, it’s like the medicare and medicaid. I don’t know that it’s so much many of our commercial payers.
Nick Scallion (15:50) Okay. So probably low volumes.
Nick Scallion (15:54) And so, you know, we could put like 100 in there again. I just a comfortable buffer. I can get that. I can include a quote. So… estimate 100 and adjust as needed. And then the caqh management. I think we got that. You basically said that. So this is like again, what I said is optional now if you’re not adding staff and rwhc is handling this for you today. This like we would recommend this because we have that integration with caqh. So, any changes that you make to providers, demographic information in the platform will then update into caqh and do those attestations, on 120 day cadence. So just for what it’s worth, does that make sense? Yep. Okay. And then facilities, I don’t know if we actually talked about this but, you know, again, I know that you just had, the bellevue acquisition if you will, but I can’t imagine there’s tons of new facilities that are opening up, but are, you folks, imagining?
Kaye Prieve (16:52) We, we didn’t have any acquisitions. So we only have one tax id number. Okay? We’ve got, so we have one hospital and we have multiple clinics, but… the revalidations are at least for facilities and I handle that. Shelby doesn’t, okay. They’re they’re not very high, so.
Nick Scallion (17:17) Okay. And so maybe just keep those out of scope for the time being or would you like us to just throw?
Kaye Prieve (17:21) In a small buffer? No, I think we’re fine. Leaving it off for now. Okay?
Nick Scallion (17:25) Very good. The joint commission credentialing. Yeah, I think you said that you have 75 new providers that join. All those need to get privileges within the hospital, I assume. And so, just trying to get an idea of the number of joint credentialing files you folks are doing because of course, you know, those providers that are staying on with fort for years, of course, will have to do some re, credentialing over time. So, any estimate on kind of where you think that those mdstaff credentialing or privileging volumes are?
Kaye Prieve (18:00) So I’m trying to think of it would be our hospitalists… I’m thinking it’s just our hospitalists because oops and our other… that’s a really good question. I guess.
Kaye Prieve (18:24) I, yeah.
Nick Scallion (18:30) If you’d like I could put that. So if there’s 250 total, some of those folks will not all. So I can put 75 here and we can validate later. Is that, do you think that’s fair?
Kaye Prieve (18:39) Yeah. I think that’s fair. Okay. And.
Nick Scallion (18:44) then I think caq, ncqa, again, these, this is, it’s a lot of overlap between the two. But this is this, these are the credentialing files specific for the providers that you’re billing for. And so I think that would probably be 32 new per year. And then you’d have to do some recredentialing probably every three years. So I think that would probably be closer to 50 to 75 for you folks just doing some back of the napkin math but not sure if you have any perspective there.
Kaye Prieve (19:08) No, that sounds right. Okay.
Nick Scallion (19:14) We have the rosters okay, very good. So I think that’s primarily like this now plus the other inputs we have, I’m gonna put together a pricing request to our finance team. I think when I did pretty comparable volumes, let me just, I’m in my calculator. Now, just looking, I think this would probably come out to around 175,000 dollars for year one and that includes a 25,000 dollar implementation fee. So it would level off closer to 150,000 don’t quote me on that. I’m gonna get this to you in writing by tomorrow morning that’s where I think we’ll land, but I can give you that kind of ballpark estimate. Excuse me right now, and then get that in writing to you tomorrow morning?
Kaye Prieve (20:00) Okay. That sounds good.
Nick Scallion (20:03) Perfect. And then the other thing I was looking at here just to put with the… proposal is going to be, that business value assessment. So onboarding, I know you mentioned that there’s gonna be, are you sending out like one single packet to new providers who are onboarding? And they’re sending documentation and filling out an application for both payer enrollment and credentialing or is it kind of ad hoc like because what I’m trying to get to is I,
Kaye Prieve (20:29) understand that. There is a, I think it’s ad hoc. I think the credentialing packet is sent different separately from like payer enrollment? Okay?
Nick Scallion (20:40) All right. That’s helpful because I know credentialing sounded like it was much more of a burden and that could take over like up to eight weeks and payer enrollment was closer to two. So like that’s gonna be one of the biggest deltas. And I think that’s what you know, some other rwhc customers appreciate is that with this whole digital approach to this where we’re pulling information that we can. And then a provider just has, you know, either mobile friendly or, on their computer to kind of filling out the rest. And we’re seeing, you know, just a couple of days to get that information. So I think that will be big. And then I think, it sounds like there’s a little bit of a black box after that. So I mentioned one thing that we’ll commit to, is payer enrollment application submission time. So as we’re creating this profile and requests are being made, we’re getting those applications submitted to commercial and government payers via their respective submission formats. So like portal or, you know, email, whatever it might be. Typically, it takes about five days, but it sounds like with rwhc once you get that information, you don’t really actually know how long it’s taking for them to submit the enrollments because it kind of just goes to them. And then you’re hearing back months or weeks later. Is that fair?
Kaye Prieve (21:39) That’s fair?
Nick Scallion (21:40) Okay.
Kaye Prieve (21:41) Yeah. And it’s really just a lot of the disc, I mean, obviously with, you know, having rwhc but it’s just really a big disconnect of anybody trying to be able to see where things are at, you know, admin being able to know… I mean, you know, they tell these providers roughly when they can start and then that all changes. And so it’s just a very big disconnect right now. So we’re just, I mean, they are really chomping to get something going.
Nick Scallion (22:17) Yeah. I can imagine. I mean there are ramifications, right? If you’re saying, hey, so and so will be ready by mid July and then it turns into mid August that’s impactful.
Nick Scallion (22:27) And I think that’s where, you know, you mentioned you would kind of look at how this was impacting the financials a bit with either worst case claims denials better. But still frustrating is like backdating claims or having sort of an Ar backlog for claims that are on hold. And or like the third pillar that we typically see is providers are kind of having to quote unquote wait on the sidelines. So you’re missing out on care that, you know, maybe a patient would have to go elsewhere for fair if you don’t have that provider type for the care that’s needed. So when you pulled some of the reporting Kay, just curious like as, you know, you’re taking this to your leadership team and they’re going to be trying to have some type of return on investment. What would the impact of these delays are that you’re seeing?
Kaye Prieve (23:07) I mean, I’m going to be perfectly honest with you. They’re not necessarily too concerned on the Roi. I guess, I mean, I know that sounds bad, but we’re… not really looking at, okay, this is, we’re going to get this reimbursement sooner. It’s just and quite, I mean, quite honestly from a lot of our conversations that, you know, we’ve had to me it’s more of organizing it for the providers so that we don’t look like we’re just running around like chickens with our heads cut off. And it’s again just… I don’t believe it was you guys that had done the presentation but when the CFO was on it, he was like, that isn’t my concern like, yeah, okay. We’re going to make a, you know, a provider is going to be able to be seen maybe a month sooner and we’ll get, yes, something, you know, obviously reimbursement sooner on that, but that isn’t the main component of why the, why behind the project. So if that makes sense. Well?
Nick Scallion (24:19) Yes. And this is common, right? Like I think if organizations are either using a cvo or if they’re trying to do this in house with spreadsheets. There are many different folks on billing scheduling, various operations members that are wondering where is so and so in the process. And that creates a huge bottleneck. So I get that. And hopefully we did a good job of demonstrating how that would be substantially different with medallion and all the visibility that we had. Yeah, is there like a general sense? I know you folks had mentioned, I think someone on our first call said that, yeah, we’ve talked to a couple others, qgenda being one, I think where I understand qgenda’s fit in the space to be, is that they have a software tool, but you would ultimately be responsible for running all the primary source verifications, doing the payroll and enrollment applications. So, yes, a better software tool for provider data management. But if you’re not going to be hiring additional individuals to do this, it’s going to be tough because now, all of a sudden your team is now doing hundreds of payroll and applications and credentialing files that today are being outsourced. So just try to understand like how we’re directionally aligning from your perspective. And I know that there’s multiple opinions that will be in the room when you’re meeting about this next week.
Kaye Prieve (25:22) I can tell you that the two biggest components that we are looking at is our CEO really liked the… credentialing committee, like virtual committee. That was a huge piece. And then the other piece as far as our medstaff director was the… verifications, where, and I’m sorry, I have to look back at my notes. But one other was they used our credentials to go out to those sites and grab that, but we don’t have credentials for all those sites. So… that was one piece that he was concerned with, but we really honestly haven’t had a ton of discussion after because we almost have had the demos and then had to run to other meetings of.
Nick Scallion (26:15) Course. Yeah. I know they may take a while which I get, yeah, yeah.
Kaye Prieve (26:18) So really there hasn’t been a lot but I just know that those are two big components are the virtual committee. And then the verifications. Like if we need to do purchase because I know some of them there’s costs associated with it, which currently we don’t because our whc does that for us. So, and I think you’re right in that it is qgenda possibly. So. Yeah, I mean we haven’t really talked which.
Nick Scallion (26:53) way.
Kaye Prieve (26:54) We’re leaning one way or the other but knowing that we just really will be making a decision and moving rather quickly once we get to meet on it. That’s.
Nick Scallion (27:06) great. I know that the other organizations our whc said that there was kind of like a… call it an out. Basically once you determine which vendor that you’re going to go with, you know, starting implementation, then you kind of have to sort of back out of our whc. Are there any other like compelling like timelines? Is there any reason for the urgency? I just want to make sure that should we have the privilege of earning the business that we’re implementing as quickly as possible to meet new deadlines or is this just generally we’ve felt a lot of frustration with this for the last few years, it’s time to get moving. Just try to understand if there’s like a compelling event if you will or timeline we should just.
Kaye Prieve (27:38) Be aware of. As far as I understand, I don’t think there’s anything huge coming up that I’m aware of, you know, the clinic manager and the nursing VP, they were the, you know, we want to get this up and running by. So I don’t know what they’re I’m not aware of something major coming. I just like you said, I think it’s we just have been doing this and potentially it could be a retirement. I don’t that could potentially be the looming as the one that handles the credentialing piece of it. I know she’s talked to retirement before. So that very well, I don’t have a date. I don’t know if that’s set in stone or if that’s exactly what’s pushing it. But on my end, it’s the enrollment. Yeah. And, you know, we, that’s the piece. I see are, you know, the denials with the enrollment or when we do have a denial, my staff trying to chase down what Shelby’s done in her files so that we can support and appeal. So I think that’s just a sense of urgency is that we’ve just been going in circles. So… good?
Nick Scallion (28:55) And maybe we can put a, I can put a screenshot or just put a note in. But for the appeal stuff, one of the nice things about medani is as soon as we get that participating in network approval from a payer, we will provide the evidence of that in the platform. So it’s not a telephone game. So, you know, hey, you know, when did we get this provider effective? What date where’s the proof? And so when you’re going to, if you do have to have an appeal, that information is readily available at your fingertips. And did you end up seeing like what on an annual basis, the denials are amounting to?
Kaye Prieve (29:25) I had it pulled up the other day when we were going to meet. And then of course, I don’t I just tried logging in and couldn’t remember my password now, but.
Nick Scallion (29:33) I would say it.
Kaye Prieve (29:35) Was I’m trying to think of if I did it for last year, which would have been the last.
Kaye Prieve (29:49) seven to 800,000 maybe and, you know, it doesn’t say, I think it was like 630 some denials. So, I know like dollar amount wise because most of them are providers, not, you know, not our surgeons or like our hospitals. So they’re more like clinic visits that tend to be denied for that. So, but I think it was around 650 denials in.
Nick Scallion (30:19) the last 13.
Kaye Prieve (30:20) Months.
Nick Scallion (30:22) That’s comparable to, yeah, for other similar size organizations, that is comparable. And so I think that’s what we try to anchor as we’re removing, right? Getting out of the way, and then removing or mitigating some of the Ar backlog that’s occurring as well. So, I think that’s generally what I had. And the other thing that I’ll include just for expectation setting on the implementation, I would forecast 12 weeks and we can talk about ways that we can make that faster. The big portion of the work on the fort side is going to be getting your provider data over to medallion.
Nick Scallion (30:52) So I think rwhc has ways of exporting stuff via spreadsheets that we’ve learned from some of the other customers that we have. And so we have individuals that have worked with rwhc migrations and so again, can try to talk about ways to make that faster. But I think comfortably, we should probably foreshadow it would be about a 12 week process.
Kaye Prieve (31:09) Sounds good. Okay.
Nick Scallion (31:11) Well, this is what I needed. Kay, thank you very much. Again, look for this presentation. My goal will be no later than probably… 11 a M your time tomorrow, and then your meeting, I guess, I suppose is, I think you said the twentieth which April’s already escaping me. I guess that’s early next week.
Kaye Prieve (31:29) Monday, I think.
Nick Scallion (31:31) Okay, great. And do you think that the result of that meeting will be kind of deciding which vendor you want to move forward with? There’s still some more exploration that we’ll need.
Kaye Prieve (31:39) To do? No, no, I don’t think there’s any more exploration. I think it’s just we’ll make discussion and go from there. Yeah.
Nick Scallion (31:47) I would love to understand the outcome of that meeting. If there’s any questions, decide to adjust any of the volumes or services that are in scope. We can certainly pivot and happy to do an add on demonstration just to go over things for any questions that there might be. But sounds like we should be able to get you everything that you need. And again just here to discuss or dive in deeper on anything that might come up as a result of that meeting. Sounds good?
Kaye Prieve (32:10) Thanks.
Nick Scallion (32:11) Again for hopping on. Kay. Anything else before I let you run?
Kaye Prieve (32:14) Not that I can think of.
Nick Scallion (32:16) Okay. Very good. Well, hopefully you folks have some power by tomorrow and we’ll be here for you next week.
Kaye Prieve (32:23) All right. Thanks see ya.
Nick Scallion (32:24) Bye now.