The document discusses healthcare's need for master data management (MDM) to create a single trusted source of reference data across disparate systems. It notes that MDM hubs can standardize data to common governance rules, define common reference data, and avoid redundant data entry. The document also provides examples of common healthcare domains that can benefit from MDM like providers, facilities, patients, reference codes. Finally, it summarizes one healthcare organization's experience deploying MDM starting with provider and location domains to consolidate inconsistent data across various systems and enable more accurate reporting.
2. 05_01_18
WHY DOES HEALTHCARE NEED MDM?
Requires authoritative, reliable TRUSTED data foundation
Trusted Master
Data
Facility/LocationProvider
Data Interoperability
Mandates
Supplies Reference DataTreatmentPatient
Reporting and Operational
Efficiency
3. 05_01_18
WHY DO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS NEED MDM?
Requires authoritative, reliable TRUSTED data foundation
Facility/LocationProvider Supplies Reference DataTreatmentPatient
MDM Hubs – Build and maintain trusted data for a ‘domain’
• Share trusted data
• Validate, store and manage incoming information
• Synchronize data across internal systems
• Standardize all data to YOUR Governance and DQ standards
• Define commonly used reference data
• Avoid redundant
effort
• Enable cross-
system reporting
• Meet compliance
requirements
4. 05_01_18
“ROSETTA STONE” – TYPICAL DATA EXAMPLES
• Data created in different silos ‘speaks’ in
different ‘languages’
• MDM is a Rosetta Stone to translate between
source and target so they can ‘understand’ each
other
• Between internal systems
• Interoperation with external systems
University
Uni
Univ
University-Campus
*University
Anesthesia
Anesthes
Anes
EP2
Anesthesiology
AN
ARNP
ARNP.
A.R.N.P
ANP-R
AP-RN
APRN
Gender
Gender - Source Gender - CMS Std
M M
F F
H U
MB4O M
MPO M
Unknown U
Standard term
Variations
Address Verification
Address Verified Address type
AV11 Y Physical
AV12 Y POBox
AV13 Y Both
AV14 N Unknown
AV15 Y Both
AV21 Y Physical
AV22 Y Both
AV23 Y POBox
AV24 N Unknown
AV25 Y Physical
5. 05_01_18
5
Consolidated Single Trusted Source Of Truth
PROVIDER HUB
MDM
EMR 1
EMR 2
Credential
System 1
Credential
System 2
EMR 3
CMS
Directory
EMR (Partner)
Name: Deborah Smith
Practice: Westside
Family Care
NPI: 655890321
EMR (Secondary)
Name: Deborah Varchey
Practice: Eastside Pediatrics
Type: Designated Practitioner
Provider Listing
Name: Deborah A
Varchie
Practice: Eastside
Pediatrics
Privileges: Admit,
Discharge
NPI: 302840392
Credentialing
Name: Debora Varchy
NPI: 699890321
Degree: Pediatrics
……
……
Composite Record
NPI Primary: 655890321
Practice NPI 302840392
Gender: Female
Degrees:
Primary: Pediatrics
Secondary1: Family Medicine
Secondary2: Masters, Public Health
eMail: dvarchy@ccc.com
Phone: 232-803-8233
DEA#: xxxxxx3312
SPI#: xxxxxx4322
Staff Status: Admit, Discharge
Staff Type: Managed Practitioner
Practice Organizations: Eastside
Pediatrics, Westside Pediatrics,
Central Pediatric Clinic
6. 05_01_18
6
Provider Hub is core to many operational processes
PROVIDER HUB
MDM
EMR 1
EMR 2
Credential
System 1
Credential
System 2
Medical
Staff
Office
CMS
Directory
Utilization
Web
directory
(and API)
Specialty
coverage
Physician
recruitment
Referral
management
Patient
Scheduling
Identity/access
management
Regulatory
Reporting
CMS compliance
7. 05_01_18
BEYOND PROVIDER MASTER – MANY DOMAINS/USE CASES
7
• Event management
• Fire monitoring
• Call management, etc.
• Access management
• Employee directory
• Emergency notification, etc.
• Study inclusion
• Address verification
• Clinical contact only flags
• Charity donor list
• Householding
• Do not contact suppression
• Supply reconciliation
• Price benchmarking
• Chargeback classification
• Standard codes
• Definitions
• Medical vocabularies
• Crosswalking/mappings
Facility/
Location
Patient
Supplies
Reference
Data
Management
Employee
Donor
8. 05_01_18
TAXONOMY GOVERNANCE – COVID-19 AND CANCER
Standardized,
Searchable Data
• Easy to search for researchers
• Foundation for AI/ML analysis
Disease Treatment Outcome
Electronic
Medical
Record
Profisee: Domain glossaries
Terminology crosswalks
Patient
Medical
Ontologists
Symptoms Markers DIagnoses
‘Raw’ Clinical Data
Profisee “Context Engine”
Profisee manages all ‘context’
• Specialists manage governance
& DQ rules for each data domain
• Profisee enforces standards and
manages issue resolution
11. 05_01_12
• Most data is siloed
• Poor overall data governance
• Inconsistent data that is hard to
integrate
VITUITY – “MASTER DATA JOURNEY”
11
• Redundant effort (common data being
maintained in several locations)
• Poor visibility – difficult to manage the
business and make strategic decisions
• Operational errors & inefficiency –
inconsistent data can cause billing and other
interoperability errors and consequent
rework
Unacceptable roadblocks for a
fast-growing business!
Data Challenges Business Impacts
12. 05_01_12
Approaches considered:
1. Use existing systems as ‘master data sources’
• Existing systems are not designed for this task
• Fundamentally does not work if data is in multiple systems
2. Custom coding of Data Warehouse to ‘master’ data
• Hard to maintain
• No transparency
• Lot of effort
3. Master Data Management platform
• Phase 1 deployment – Provider and Site domains (in Azure cloud)
• Future planned domains – Patient, Payer Contracts, Reference Data
4. Data Governance
• Clearly needed and initial steps taken to drive governance maturity
• MDM implements governance rules
VITUITY – “MASTER DATA JOURNEY”
12
Not
viable
Not
viable
Phase 1 live,
more to go
Starting the
journey…
13. 05_01_12
VITUITY – MANY DOMAINS AND USE CASES
• Drive consistent names/spellings and
related information
• Eliminates redundant effort
• Enables accurate reporting (and trust
in data)
• Consolidate information from EHR,
Credentialling, Billing and Legal
• Eliminate errors/inconsistencies
• Avoid redundant maintenance effort
• Solid foundation for reporting and
capturing additional information
• Enable patient tracking through
whole care experience for
• Better care
• Better tracking and metrics
• Avoid redundant data entry (basic
info, insurance, etc.)
• Standard codes & definitions
• Standardize mapping &
crosswalks
• CPT codes
• ICD9/10 codes
• CCS Diagnostics, etc.
Facility/
Location
Patient
Reference Data
Management
Provider
• Standardize payer names
• Enrich with roll-up hierarchies
“Start with 1 domain for simplicity BUT there is no chance there is a business out there
that only has one domain to be mastered”, Jenny Hyun, Vituity
Payer
Contracts
There are 2 important pressures that are reshaping healthcare today.
The first are the mandates for data interoperability being imposed by the Government and CMS as part of the Cures Act that state that there must be public APIs for provider and patient information. The APIs themselves are not really the issue though, it’s the need for well managed, complete and trusted data that is good enough to be shared, and that incoming information that may be in a variety of forms, can be understood and combined with existing information.
Second is the ongoing for insight into the business through various forms of reporting and then the agility to be able to respond to those insights to drive more operational efficiency – whether that in clinical outcomes, managing utilization, procurement or some other aspect of the business – we all know that all organizationa are increasingly run through data.
So it follows that bother these critical activities must be backed by ‘trusted master data’ – that is, the relatively slow moving data that forms the pillars of the business. Some of those what we call ‘domains’ are listed at the bottom of the slide. These and more can be ‘master data’ and aligning and synchronizing this data across and between systems is key to integratin gnad interoperating between those systems
There are 2 important pressures that are reshaping healthcare today.
The first are the mandates for data interoperability being imposed by the Government and CMS as part of the Cures Act that state that there must be public APIs for provider and patient information. The APIs themselves are not really the issue though, it’s the need for well managed, complete and trusted data that is good enough to be shared, and that incoming information that may be in a variety of forms, can be understood and combined with existing information.
Second is the ongoing for insight into the business through various forms of reporting and then the agility to be able to respond to those insights to drive more operational efficiency – whether that in clinical outcomes, managing utilization, procurement or some other aspect of the business – we all know that all organizationa are increasingly run through data.
So it follows that bother these critical activities must be backed by ‘trusted master data’ – that is, the relatively slow moving data that forms the pillars of the business. Some of those what we call ‘domains’ are listed at the bottom of the slide. These and more can be ‘master data’ and aligning and synchronizing this data across and between systems is key to integratin gnad interoperating between those systems
A talk though on this slide
In reality, the way master data is captured and updated across most organizations is fragmented and discontinuous. It’s MDM’s job to listen for new and updated information, link the correct information together, and assemble the puzzle pieces incrementally. Complicating this process is the fact that information is often incomplete and inconsistent. It would be like trying to assemble a jig saw puzzle where the picture side of the pieces had been damaged, and only part of the picture were visible.
First build: In this scenario, the first piece of information available might be from an external source, such as a marketing lead file or in this case, Dun & Bradstreet. Here we capture information about Debora Varchy with Crete Carrier Corporation
Second build: The next interaction might be with the parts department, when Debora orders a replacement part. In this case, the parts representative captures her name as “Deb Varchie” and abbreviates the company name to “Crete Carrier Corp.” MDM figures out that this is the same person, with the same company, and aggregates the information together.
Third build: The next interaction might be with the service department, when the new part doesn’t work properly. In this case, the service representative captures her name as “Debby Varchy” and abbreviates the company name to “CCC”. Again, MDM recognizes that this is the same person and the same company, and continues to aggregate the information we know about Debora and Create Carrier Corporation.
Fourth build: The next interaction might be with the warranty division, as the replacement part is clearly defective.….same story.
Fifth build: MDM has taken these fragments of master data, correctly reconciled them, and used them to assemble an aggregate composite record that is the most complete, most up to date information available on Debora Varchy and Crete Carrier Corporation. As part of this process, MDM captures each contributing system and the primary keys for the data from each contributing record. This cross reference information is a gold-mine for analytics, allowing transactions from multiple systems to be correctly aggregated, even when the information in those systems is inconsistent or incomplete. Furthermore, the best, most complete composite data set can be shared back to operating systems, ensuring that invoices are sent to the most current and accurate billing address, or orders shipped to the best, most current delivery address, etc.
What MDM is doing, really, is collecting updates and changes to key master data as they are captured across multiple systems. The real magic is two-fold.
MDM will link up information fragments to build out the complete, composite picture, even when the information is not 100% accurate and consistent, and
MDM will apply rules to assemble the best, most complete composite record – e.i. identify the best address, the best email, the best company name, etc.
Chargeback – industry average is 4-5% comes from chargeable supplies; their average was 1% as some items were misclassified for chargeback – so 3-4% underbilling
Undercharging by 3-4% = $20mm/year
About 6.4M patient lives annually
Business units – Providers, Practice Management, and RCM/Billing