Provider operations you can see, assign, and prove
Credentialing, participation and the published directory are three records that are supposed to agree about the same provider. Attergo holds them against one provider identity and raises an exception the moment they stop agreeing, so the disagreement is worked as an item rather than discovered during an audit.
Three records, one provider, no shared answer
A credential expires in one system, participation ends in another, and the directory keeps publishing an address the provider left. Each system is internally consistent and the organization is still wrong in public. Nobody is negligent; there is simply no place where the three are compared, so the comparison only happens when somebody outside makes it.
The mechanism behind it.
One provider identity, several records against it
Affiliations, credentials, participation, contracts and directory entries attach to the same provider, so a question about one can be answered without deciding which system to believe.
Disagreements become exceptions, not discoveries
Expiring credentials, participation that no longer matches the directory and delegated obligations past their date are detected and raised as work with an owner.
Delegated oversight with the evidence attached
Delegated entities carry their obligations and the record of what was reviewed and when. Oversight that cannot produce its evidence is an assertion.
Adequacy measured from the network as recorded
Adequacy reporting reads the same provider and participation records the operational queues read, so the report and the work never describe two different networks.
The products this reaches.
What an enterprise organization additionally gets.
Network operations
These are enterprise surfaces. How they are packaged is on the pricing page, and nothing above them requires an enterprise organization to reach.