Passports would be simpler, cheaper and fairer for all
By Bruce Stanley
Over the last five years, the industry has placed significant emphasis on vendor access and credentialing. We may have reached the point where expectations are beginning to be understood and accepted. But that’s only the beginning. The real test will be simplifying the process, both financially and technically.
Here’s the problem: Vendor representatives interact with many facilities using multiple credentialing organizations, with differing styles. They spend valuable time re-documenting previously submitted credentials. When they transfer or move to another company, they often must repeat the credentialing process due to concerns about the state of old data and its ownership. The current process gives control of the data to third-party organizations, not to the representatives themselves.
What’s more, each facility, IDN, or group establishes its own standard using its own choice of third-party credentialing organization. Despite significant debate over the value of such organizations, I believe that they can and will provide the platform for next phase.
How passports would work
The idea of a credentialing passport has been floated since the early days of the vendor credentialing “outbreak.” In the early 2000s, no uniform standards were applied to credentialing, and this posed the largest barrier to passport implementation. But after many years of hard work developing industry standards by the Coalition for Best Practices in HCIR Requirements, the possibility of creating a passport is closer to reality. Now only economic and parochial interests appear to be barriers.
A vendor passport is simply one document, with industry-accepted standards, that would give reps access to any facility in the United States. Reps would annually submit their data to one organization and would be required to update any new information. They would retain data ownership. They would be issued a validated data card, similar to a driver’s license, indicating they have been “credentialed.”
A passport would be “issued” by the primary institution through its preferred credentialing organization. Just as with country-issued passports, reps would be considered “citizens” of each facility. Each facility could still retain its own unique requirements (just as some countries may require, say, eye scans, in addition to passports).
Every credentialing organization would be audited annually to ensure adherence to protocols of privacy and data security, and its employees would be trained in documentation and data management. Just as major banking institutions send customers annual privacy notices, third-party credentialing organizations could do the same. The third-party organizations would be “certified” by the Coalition or other organization (such as the Joint Commission) and provided with a seal of approval to issue the universally accepted passport.
A better managed system
Some believe that it’s fruitless to devote more energy to a process that has already been initiated. I don’t agree. While the current process works, it does not work efficiently or optimally for anyone. For example, there is still confusion over data security and its maintenance.
Sounds simple. So why isn’t the concept of a vendor passport accepted? The barriers seem to be either too much vested interest in perpetuating a very cumbersome process, or lack of vision.
The passport system requires trust. It would allow reps to do what they do best – sell and counsel customers on new techniques, new product, and better processes. It would also prove that our healthcare system has the ability to better manage the personal data of reps while providing the necessary compliance required by healthcare facilities.
The passport process would also demonstrate that our industry is not promoting cost-shifting from one party or another, but that the focus of credentialing is foremost to protect patients and caregivers. First steps would be for a forum of leaders led by the Coalition to meet and discuss the ramifications and possibilities for a streamlined process that utilizes the thorough work done by the HCIR initiative.
It only makes sense to complete the journey and show how our industry can self-manage, meet an operating challenge, and build the best process using technology to support best practice worldwide.
Bruce Stanley is a supply chain and contracting operations consultant with more than 30 years in the healthcare industry, and an adjunct professor at Endicott College’s MBA program, teaching global supply chain, contracting and healthcare informatics and regulations. He served as senior director, contracting operations, for Becton Dickinson. He is a former chairman of the AdvaMed working group focused on vendor access-credentialing, and has collaborated with MassMedic and AdvaMed on legislative initiatives related to this topic. In 2011, he co-founded The Stanley East Consulting Group, in Ipswich, Mass., a global consulting practice specializing in supply chain, contracting, order fulfillment and project management for small and medium-sized companies, startups, and companies in transition or divestiture.